Army Officer Commercial

[MattM]

And how many bright, young (Ivy-educated or otherwise) folks with world-changing/saving ideas are going to "survive" the first five or so years when "sir yes sir" is the right response to everything? Especially when they know they are the smartest in the room (a room full of people for whom "smart" appears inversely proportional to time in service/experience) and no one will listen?

I would dare say that was my experience. It is not that nobody would listen; it was that I had to slow the thought process way down to countermand the logical errors and comparative reasoning faults of all parties involved up the chain of command. Thus, I respectfully declined augmentation in July of 2001. This was a big deal back then, when all the field grades went through the wringer to be offered augmentation.

To my own fault, I did not trust that I would get orders to Naval Post Graduate School, even though in hindsight I surely would have. I had only bad experiences with the manpower process to this point.

The issue of a polarized Sam Damon / Courtney Massengale offers the opposite pole to the elite education issue. Currently, all services accept a degree as a qualification that one can obtain a commission; and the process requires very little evidence that an education has taken place.

[Kiwigrunt]

Timely poll result

A bit off topic, but on reading this poll, my eyes were drawn to the number (200,000) of officers in US active service. I thought, shikes, that seems a lot. So I asked my friends Google and Wiki for some numbers and came up with these officers to enlisted ratios:
US Army 1 : 5.2
USMC 1 : 8.8
US Navy 1 : 5.4
US Air Force 1 : 4.1
US Coast Guard 1 : 4.1

What struck me here (apart from the relatively high number of officers in relation to enlisted) was that the USMC stands out…quite a bit, especially when compared against the army. I assume larger platoons will have something to do with it but…..what else?



PS: If we completely flatten the hierarchy we could almost have one officer to every fire-team.

[Uboat509]

PS: If we completely flatten the hierarchy we could almost have one officer to every fire-team.

Don't even kid about that.

SFC W

[Old Eagle]

The air force numbers are a little misleading in that the "privates", i.e. the trigger pullers are all commissioned, while the NCOs do the intellectual work

[jmm99]

from kiwi...
US Army 1 : 5.2
USMC 1 : 8.8
US Navy 1 : 5.4
US Air Force 1 : 4.1
US Coast Guard 1 : 4.1

also as noted by me once upon a time, and explained to me by my local Marine recruiter: The Marines give NCOs a lot more responsibility, starting with fireteam leaders. We don't need as many officers, who can do other things that have to be done.

I'd be interested in how the Marines here explain it.

[CR6]

What struck me here (apart from the relatively high number of officers in relation to enlisted) was that the USMC stands out…quite a bit, especially when compared against the army. I assume larger platoons will have something to do with it but…..what else?



PS: If we completely flatten the hierarchy we could almost have one officer to every fire-team.

I'm curious if this comparrison removed specialty officers such as doctors and chaplains from the mix. In the Army, these personnel are Army officers, while the Corps has no billets and receives such support from the Navy. If ALL Army officers were considered, it seems to me it distorts the ratio a little.

[Cavguy]

I'm curious if this comparrison removed specialty officers such as doctors and chaplains from the mix. In the Army, these personnel are Army officers, while the Corps has no billets and receives such support from the Navy. If ALL Army officers were considered, it seems to me it distorts the ratio a little.

Another skewing factor is the relative lack of theater level logistics units in the Corps. The Marines rely heavily on the Army's higher level logistics networks in IZ and AFG as it cannot support itself for enduring missions without augmentation from the other services. Many of these such elements are officer heavy as things such as movements control, warehouse ops, port operations, etc. are staff intensive.

[Ken White]

This is caused by three things; A series of reductions in force that always cuts more enlisted than officer spaces , thus nudging the ratio down a bit with each iteration. A strong desire for an adequate mobilization base of officers, particularly Flag Officers leads to a padding of officer strength -- most of the excess is simply parked on too large staffs at all levels, the ratio of officers in contact with or command of troops hasn't changed much. The third factor is the Statutory requirements for fairness and equity in promotions. Congress demands an equal shot and the up or out process required to satisfy them entail a very wide pyramid. There are many other factors but those are the big three. One minor factor is the dumbing down of the US educational system at the secondary level for a number of reasons that result in a belief that a college degree is required for anyone who must think. Yet, as MattM said above:

Currently, all services accept a degree as a qualification that one can obtain a commission; and the process requires very little evidence that an education has taken place.

I figure if we keep playing with the uniform, giving out high level meritorious service (as opposed to combat) awards to people for just doing their jobs (Someone senior note a LTC friend of mine had seven Meritorious Service Medals and asked him why. His reply: "I PCSed a lot" -- meaning that he got one every time he transferred) and the Officer to troop ratio keeps going down, we'll resemble one of those Armies that we used to make fun of...

[jmm99]

MEDOPSBOOKFEB01 Ppt Presentation, gives the higher echelon Naval Med and Dental support to a Marine MEF (3 active):

Slide39: USMC Medical Battalion Personnel: 214 Officers/757 Enlisted Mobility: 100% BOA: One per Force Service Support Group Assigned To: Force Service Support Group MISSION: Provide Echelon II medical support to a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). COMMAND AND CONTROL: Commanding officer reports to the Commanding General of the Force Service Support Group. ORGANIZATION: 1 x Headquarters and Service Company 3 x Surgical Companies CHARACTERISTICS: Operating Rooms: 9 Laboratories 6 X-ray: 6 Pharmacy: 6 Flow-through Cots: 260 Shock Trauma Platoons: 8 Erect Time: 6 hrs. Maximum Patient Holding Time: 72 hrs. 39

Slide40: USMC Dental Battalion Personnel: 76 Officers/160 Enlisted Mobility: 100% BOA: One unit per maneuver battalion Assigned To: Force Service Support Group MISSION: Provides Echelon II dental support to a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). COMMAND & CONTROL: Dental battalion Commanding Officer reports to the Commanding General of the Force Service Support Group and is assigned the additional duty as the MEF Dental Officer. ORGANIZATION: Headquarters and Service Company Three x Dental Companies COMPANY ORGANIZATION: Headquarters Section 2 x Dental Officers 4 x Dental Technicians Clinical Section 17 x General Dentists 1 x Comprehensive Dentist 1 x Periodontist 1 x Endodontist 1 x Oral Surgeon 1 x Prosthodontist 44 x Dental Technicians 40

but, then you would have to factor in all of the lower echelon EM hospital corpsmen, etc. I doubt whether this is close to the complete answer - nor, for that matter, the infantry platoon size.

If you want to go to more work than I do, you can parse through the TO&E of a MAGTF (MEF - e.g., Marine Division), which would provide the answers.

Be interesting to see the O-EM ratios in the GCE, ACE and CSSE, and in their respective components. Do the Marines have relatively fewer officers in the GCE ? That was the point made to me by the Marine recruiter.

Regards to all,

Mike

[Kiwigrunt]

Ha ha, you thought you guys were rich on officers......I just did the same for the NZDF.

Ratios are as follows:
Army 1 : 5.0
Navy 1 : 3.4
Air Force 1 : 3.0

Just to give you a taste, for an army (active duty) of 5003 we have 9 brigadiers, 268 majors, 176 captains (less than majors) and 182 lieutenants (1st and 2nd)

[jmm99]

A regimental TO from 1 Jan 1945 (117-30ID), with 153 Os (+ 5 WOs) and 3049 EM.

Since we don't have operational regiments anymore, the Rifle Bn ratio was 35 Os and 825 EM. Miracle how they managed to function - with that, and 8 O Bn operational planning staffs (most all managing combat roles, as well).

[Kiwigrunt]

This site gives a lot of detailed info on WWII unit compositions. Commonwealth battalions (inf) were similar to the US set-up that you showed jmm99. With around 35/36 : 800 (bat. HQ had 5 off.)
USMC inf bat. were larger but ratios weren’t far different with around 38 : 900 (roughly averaged through the evolving series)
The Germans typically had around 30 % fewer officers but many platoons were commanded by NCOs and often the coy. com. was the senior pl. com.


Now to be fair, do current inf. bat. really look all that different. Maybe a few more off. at HQ but from there down it's pretty much identical.
So the 'excess' is to be found where Cavguy and Ken have identified them, above and to the peripherals of the combat units.

[jmm99]

since I tend to accept Ken and Niel as pretty much gospel when it comes to Army force structure and training.

That being said, are the present inf Bns running anywhere near the 20:1 ratios of WWII ?

And, there could be good reasons for the present ratios - more technology = more degrees = more officers - might be one syllogism. And - higher grade = higher pay - since there has to some status recognition and economic reward for the commitment.

What does NZ do with 9 brigadiers ? Or 258 majors ? Provide, I suppose, an officer corps for a much larger army if the balloon goes up ? Life must get pretty boring for most of them. Although I'm told by a friend that NZ has just great stream fishing.

WWII Battalion Organisation link is interesting - thanks much.

Cheers from Upoverland

Mike

[Courtney Massengale]

But for someone with such an aversion to taking what a Marine E-5 dreams up seriously, you did name yourself after a character he dreamed up to represent everything bad in self-serving, career oriented officers.

Like so many other things, it isn't the work itself, its what it has come to represent. For me, it represents the generation that just missed Vietnam, survived the draw down, got us into GWOT and fooled themselves into thinking they are Damons.

But more to the point, this is a website. Not to offend anyone, but I tend to take self-image over the internet with a large grain of self-depreciating salt. I understand and respect that many people tie SWJ to their professional career (be it military, historian, writer, etc), but my personal $0.02 here is more geared towards voicing my opinion. I tend to worry more about the folks who create an avatar that prefaces their comments with an air of credibility without revealing their qualifications. There are, obviously, other places for more nuanced professional discussions about what I have experience in and those are the places where I toss my resume behind my blabbering.

I've always said I've learned from everyone I ever worked for or with. Either how to do something, or how not to. Trick in life is to pick your role models wisely. As to once an eagle, I enjoyed the book and could empathize more with Damon, no more, no less.

This might be a very post-modern take, but for me, here was a large cognitive dissonance between what people believed Sam Damon stands for and what is actually written in the book. Especially as the first time I read it was in the mid-90s. Some of the most Damonesque aspects of Sam Damon seemed quaint (racial equality! OCS! lists of things your boy needs to learn!) while others seemed strangely out of touch with the newly minted Army Values and the direction the Army was moving in (tossing guys down stairs! screwing nurses in Australia! walking off malaria!). It doesn’t help that the dire predictions at the end of the novel did not come to pass (land war with China?) and the specter of Vietnam had mostly been erased by Desert Storm.

I might be on an island here, but I would wager that most of today’s junior officers don’t relate with Sam Damon OR Courtney Massengale. If anything, I think MORE people are able to emphasize with Courtney – they’re caught in a marriage that the military has sucked the love out of, they have to do unpleasant things to stay in their bosses good graces and they’re stuck advocating for a war that they know is bad for the country but is professionally developmental.

Although I would like to see HRC employ an alcoholic mother to give advice for career progression...

[pjmunson]

if Courtney Massengale just likes to ruffle feathers and put out a contrarian viewpoint for fun or if he really is a lot like Courtney Massengale, but it sure seems like he's taken the contrarian a bit far. I highly doubt that many people who read "Once an Eagle" identify with Massengale. Everyone I know that has read and recommended the book has wanted to identify with Damon. Yes, it's fiction and yes, it's quaint, but we have all met Massengales and hated them and some of us have met a precious few who trend towards Damon and idolized them. I forget how throwing the guy down the stairs came into the plot, but things like that, while publicly "reprehensible," often only increase a military leader's attraction, especially if he doesn't get caught. This was especially so in the timeframe of the book. We aren't in the glee club and we don't lead boy scouts.

Some of the Damon flaws can be taken, too, as cautionary. In any case, Massengale loves to hate Damon. I hope he doesn't take his Massengale character too far in real life.

[AmericanPride]

From a junior officer: I've never heard of Once an Eagle until I read this thread. Well, I probably heard about it in passing when talking about Army reading lists which I usually do my best to avoid (though I did read Killer Angels and Band of Brothers). It's hard enough drawing accurate and useful lessons from historical fact, much less fiction which is designed to drive home the author's ideals sometimes in spite of fact. It seems to me though from the depictions of the characters that Damon is an idealized character because he reflects what should be and the other is admonished because he reflects what is. It's appears to be one of those things that everyone knows but God forbid you be the one to actually say it.

[Ken White]

But more to the point, this is a website. Not to offend anyone, but I tend to take self-image over the internet with a large grain of self-depreciating salt.

As do most of us...

...(racial equality! OCS! lists of things your boy needs to learn!) while others seemed strangely out of touch with the newly minted Army Values and the direction the Army was moving in (tossing guys down stairs! screwing nurses in Australia! walking off malaria!).

Different time. He was reporting life as it was then in a book of fiction. Tossing people down stairs occurred frequently, as did multiple fights in all grades of school and in public places between adults. Seem almost prehistoric by today enlightened standards. That's why the Army and Marines have to teach various forms of hand to hand combat today -- many 'adults' have never been struck or roughed up by another person. As for Australia, if you're ever in a similar situation and consider it carefully, not just overseas, but deployed for the duration not a few months and in a nation of broadly similar culture where association is not 'discouraged,' I suggest you note the behavior along that lineof all your fellow soldiers...

It doesn’t help that the dire predictions at the end of the novel did not come to pass (land war with China?)

Should that be did not or 'has not yet?'

and the specter of Vietnam had mostly been erased by Desert Storm.

Really? I don't think so. Not at all. Most people are sharp enough to realize that Desert Storm with 100 casualties in 100 hours was not a war but a live fire FTX with a poor OpFor. That it didn't erase much of anything about Viet Nam is I think evidenced by those who objected to Afghanistan and Iraq. Same people and their clones or offspring.

I might be on an island here, but I would wager that most of today’s junior officers don’t relate with Sam Damon OR Courtney Massengale. If anything, I think MORE people are able to emphasize with Courtney – they’re caught in a marriage that the military has sucked the love out of, they have to do unpleasant things to stay in their bosses good graces and they’re stuck advocating for a war that they know is bad for the country but is professionally developmental.

In order, I suspect you're correct and that's sad. I don't think anything can suck love out of a good marriage though one that probably shouldn't have been could be easily affected. How do you live with yourself if you 'have to do unpleasant things' and why would you want to stay in the good graces of your Boss. Anyone who advocates any war is a dangerous fool; doing your job is one thing, advocating it for professional development definitely is Courtney material.

Although I would like to see HRC employ an alcoholic mother to give advice for career progression...

She'd probably make far more sense than does most that comes out of HRC...

[Ken White]

...It seems to me though from the depictions of the characters that Damon is an idealized character because he reflects what should be and the other is admonished because he reflects what is. It's appears to be one of those things that everyone knows but God forbid you be the one to actually say it.

As you say, it's fiction. Admonished due to being 'what is' perhaps -- also noting that it doesn't have to be that way, it's a personal choice that doesn't reflect well on the individual, that it does drive other, better people out of the service and that some Damons stick around in spite of the Courtneys. I'd say the ratio is better than 60:40 for the good guys.

That's a good thing. That's also reality. Everywhere in the world other than in the entertainment industry and a couple of other places where it seems to be reversed; fortunately, the armed forces of the US are on the good slope...

[Schmedlap]

In regard to Officer ratios - I think Neil hit it on the head with regard to the Army's logistics tail. Just running the numbers in my head from one of my deployments, my battalion had about 800 to 850 personnel. We had 1 LTC, 2 MAJs, 13 CPTs, and 40 LTs (at the start of the deployment). That was for 8 companies (A thru F, plus HHC, and an attached NG company) manning a small FOB and 3 patrol bases, plus a JCC and a MiTT. So, our ratio was about 1:14. I suspect that is a good snapshot, since our battalion had infantry, armor, engineers, a support company, and an HHC - each type of company having platoons of different sizes. By the end of the deployment, the numbers of CPTs and LTs flip-flopped due to promotions, but it didn't make much sense to swap out personnel at that point.

Brigade had 12 CPTs just in their S3 shop. No wonder they were always demanding more reports and storyboards.

In regard to some issues about who we recruit - the Officers in the battalion above were a fair mix of West Point, OCS, and ROTC. We had LTs ranging in age from 23 to 33 - guys fresh out of college, others who left a career in response to 9/11. I don't think that any officer in the Bn attended an Ivy League school, though I know one attended the notorious UC-Berkeley. Their backgrounds ran the full gamut of redneck, rich kid, yankee, farm hand, beach bum, and backwoods yokel; black, white, asian, and hispanic; religion did not come up often, but I know one was an evangelical, one was Jewish, and it would not surprise me if many had "no preference" on their ID tags. I saw no indication that any background made anyone better or worse prepared.

In regard to the Once An Eagle tangent - I never heard of the book or the characters. But I am now glad that I know the name is not real. I thought it was a tad awkward to see responses to Courtney Massengale on other threads prefaced with "Sir,". I wondered, "is Courtney a man's name?" Well, apparently it is, though I guess it didn't matter.

[tankersteve]

Schmedlap,

What Neil was alluding to was the Army's Title X requirement to provide ALL theater logistics support beyond a certain distance inland, regardless of service. Thus, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all find themselves looking to the Army for heavy line-haul, bulk fuel, etc. This certainly ups the numbers of officers a bit.

I am sure a logistician can deliver the details (or correct my mistakes) more succinctly than I can.

I am not sure the Army Corps of Engineers is factored into that number, but that is pretty much an all officer/civilian organization, AFAIK. They support US, Army and Air Force engineer issues. Engineer types, please chime in...

On another note, anyone here with better search-fu have the manning/MTOE of the Stryker and IBCT? I would be curious of where our combat brigades stand on the officer/enlisted ratio. This is what really matters, IMO.

Tankersteve