Point/Counterpoint: Are the Service Academies in Trouble?

[William F. Owen]

Served in the ranks for how long and doing what?

Depends on the unit, and branch. Reuven Gal's "Portrait of an Israeli Soldier" describes the whole process in detail. - (and book recommended to me by General Sir John Kiszely)

Essentially, you have to pass out of basic training with a good score, be selected to do the JNCO course, and the best of those go on to be officers, while having served as JNCOs in the unit, to the satisfaction of the Commanding officer. It's very much about character, and ability.

The current COS, Gabi Askenazi comes from an very impoverished and disadvantaged back ground. It is said, his introduction to combat and vigilance, was guarding the family's one chicken! Maybe an apocryphal story.

[Red Rat]

Just for information I have copied below the Training Objectives (TO) for the Commissioning Course at Sandhurst. Sandhurst remains different from other military academies in that it is a one year course focused on producing leaders to fill platoon command slots; it is not academically orientated.

TO1 Demonstrate combat fitness
TO2 Handle and fire platoon weapon systems
TO3 Navigate across country
TO4 Apply battlefield first aid
TO5 Carry out basic fieldcraft
TO6 Operate in a CBRN environment (Chem, bio and nuclear)
TO7 Officership Ethics, integrity, values and standards
TO8 Command
TO9 Perform Military Duties (including drill)
TO10 Communicate Effectively
TO11 Spare
TO12 Lead Individual and Team Training (adventure training, cadet platoon projects, sports et al)
TO13 Spare
TO14 Operate IT/IM Equipment
TO15 Lead a Platoon
TO16 Operate Tactical Communications Systems
TO17 Apply knowledge of Tactics
TO18 Analyse British Military Doctrine
TO19 Analyse Military performance in Current Conflicts
TO20 Analyse the Current Political and Strategic Context
TO21 Describe Structure and Roles of the British Armed Forces
TO22 Explain the Capabilities And Operating Environment of a Battle Group


Exercises take up 43% of programmed time. Exercises are the vital tool as vehicles both to support lessons taught under the majority of the TOs , for cadets to display the skills of leadership and command and for the DS to assess those skills and the cadets’ suitability for a commission.

It is accepted wisdom that it is only by placing cadets in conditions of physical and mental stress that their endurance and resilience can be properly tested. Whilst the exercise programme is heavy and resource intensive it should be remembered that for the majority the realities of operations are imminent on completion of Course.

The cadets also do a staff ride in Normandy which gives the cadets the chance to practise estimate and decision making against the backdrop of a past campaign. This is a challenging exercise which sees the integration of civilian and military staff at its best.

[William F. Owen]

Just for information I have copied below the Training Objectives (TO) for the Commissioning Course at Sandhurst. Sandhurst remains different from other military academies in that it is a one year course focused on producing leaders to fill platoon command slots; it is not academically orientated.

Thanks for that. Strange how Sandhurst focusses on producing Infantry Platoon Commander out of civilians, and yet the Infantry officers then have to go and do PCBC at Brecon to learn to be Platoon Commanders.

I have never understood why we do not require all male officers to graduate from Infantry basic training, with the ranks and then do a short 4-month "Officer School/Selection" followed by special to arm training. What "Officer School" consists of is open to discussion, but looking at Sandhurst and the current system challenges my objectivity. I see no merit versus alternatives.

I recently asked one of the Sandhurst Staff how many got failed out of the course and he told me, that it wasn't their job to fail people, but develop them. - This is fundamentally disagree with.

[Red Rat]

Thanks for that. Strange how Sandhurst focusses on producing Infantry Platoon Commander out of civilians, and yet the Infantry officers then have to go and do PCBC at Brecon to learn to be Platoon Commanders.

I never understood that either when I went through. Platoon commanders' course has now changed considerably with overseas exercises and real soldiers to command. They still do not have the full range of operational weapon systems to train with though....

I have never understood why we do not require all male officers to graduate from Infantry basic training, with the ranks and then do a short 4-month "Officer School/Selection" followed by special to arm training. What "Officer School" consists of is open to discussion, but looking at Sandhurst and the current system challenges my objectivity. I see no merit versus alternatives.

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 There was some Treasury inspired talk some years ago of a common officer training academy for all 3 services but I think comon sense prevailed. None of the Services thought it would be a good thing. Our experience of joint training establishments is that the lowest common denominator (inevitably 'Light Blue'...) is adopted.

I recently asked one of the Sandhurst Staff how many got failed out of the course and he told me, that it wasn't their job to fail people, but develop them. - This is fundamentally disagree with.

Concur. Much depends on the attitude of the company commander, the laddie beside me sacked 5 of his cadets when he was company commanding at Sandhurst. Combat arm DS tend to be more demanding at Sandhurst, especially of those who aspire to join the combat arms.

[John T. Fishel]

Sandhurst is a training program, not an education program. However, a couple of TOs do have education (v training) content. Of course, all education has a training component while all training has an education component - think of the difference as between critical thinking and acquisition of skills. As Wilf and others have pointed out, there are many roads to officership. I would add that the American Officer Candidate School source of commissioning is as important as ROTC or the academies. I would also note that two of my students at OU this year are former enlisted who will be commissioing shortly through ROTC - one USAF and one US Army. In the Army this used to be known as Green to Gold.

Cheers

JohnT

[Red Rat]

Sandhurst is a training program, not an education program. However, a couple of TOs do have education (v training) content.

Concur. To elaborate further:

TO 18/19 These 2 subjects take up 2% of programmed time. They are inextricably linked. Considerable time in the WS syllabus is however spent on aspects of military leadership. the programme is delivered by a mixture of military and academic staff, as are the operations of war lectures

TO 20 This takes up 2% of programmed time and includes elements of TO7, specifically LOAC. The programme deals with themes rather than a chronological recounting of world events and influences on the present. Case studies are the key tool and the inclusion and integration of the academics into the military package complements and provides practical input.

As an Army we are not intellectually minded at all and several senior officers I have spoken to have sataed that they would like to see more thinking happen, perhaps the opportunity for more officers at field officer grade to spend time in full time academic institutions.

At junior grade there is common consensus that our training of junior staff officers (captains) is not fit for purpose.

[William F. Owen]

TO9 Perform Military Duties (including drill)

....and how much time does "drill" take up? Why we still do this to the extent we do, leaves me cold. And I did "Light Division Drill!"

[JMA]

Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
I recently asked one of the Sandhurst Staff how many got failed out of the course and he told me, that it wasn't their job to fail people, but develop them. - This is fundamentally disagree with.

Concur. Much depends on the attitude of the company commander, the laddie beside me sacked 5 of his cadets when he was company commanding at Sandhurst. Combat arm DS tend to be more demanding at Sandhurst, especially of those who aspire to join the combat arms.

Yes and no. My opinion is that it is up to the initial selection process (OSB) to get it mostly right so that the course staff could concentrate on taking the students to their potential (as much as you can do in such a short period.) I got intensely irritated when presented with obvious hopeless cases from the outset.

Better to have half the size of the course and have a better pass rate of better trained and exercised young officers than to carry passengers along for the ride for no purpose.

I liked the idea the Selous Scouts had when they trained some National Servicemen (yes believe it or not even they needed to top up with 18 year olds). They took them directly on a physical selection course where they were placed under constant stress for a period of a month where they learned bushcraft and the like. A great test of character. 99% of those who made the first month passed out I understand.

Now (at last) here is a good use for Kenya. Take the cadets out there for a month where they will do just enough drill to get from A to B, do all the field craft/bushcraft stuff, do the basic personal weapon training stuff, mix in a lot of endurance and team work issues, cover the map reading etc etc

So effectively you cover:

TO1 Demonstrate combat fitness
TO2 Handle and fire platoon weapon systems (rifle and LMG)
TO3 Navigate across country
TO4 Apply battlefield first aid
TO5 Carry out basic fieldcraft
TO12 Lead Individual and Team Training (adventure training, cadet platoon projects, sports et al)
add Intro to tracking.
Plus many of the leadership aspects.

After one month they will have had the best/most interesting/most enjoyable training they will ever have and you will have sorted the men from the boys.

I say its a bargain. (I'll be available for the hot season say November

[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

[William F. Owen]

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.

The system is built around a 3 year period of service. The officer selection is based on something called Kaba (quality) scores, that is based on your life before the army from school work, family history and psychological examinations on joining. It is notable that almost all successful IDF officers have very high Kaba scores. This is the bit everyone misses.

You are selected as a potential officer before you get into uniform. If you want to be an officer, you have to serve longer, be more committed and smarter than everyone else - and prove it constantly. Only the highest scoring candidates from the NCO school, make it to Officer School. The IDF system is essentially based on selecting officers, not just training them.
By all accounts things are less brutal than they used to be, but it's still very tough.

[Red Rat]

The system is built around a 3 year period of service. The officer selection is based on something called Kaba (quality) scores, that is based on your life before the army from school work, family history and psychological examinations on joining. It is notable that almost all successful IDF officers have very high Kaba scores. This is the bit everyone misses.

Is there any literature on the kaba methodology? While at university a friend of mine did his thesis on the Army Officer Selection process. The Army Officer Selection Board (AOSB) is surprisingly sophisticated (most of us just remember command tasks with 3 barrels, 6 toggle ropes, 2 planks and a hangover; as well as the dreaded 6ft wall ) with lots of psychometric testing. I forget what the statistics are, but AOSB reckoned it identified most General Staff officers (bird colonel and above) at AOSB.

Replying to JMAs point on officer training syllabus, the first term at Sandhurst is the trained soldier syllabus, so if officer candidates had to come having completed time in the ranks then you ould in theory cut the course by approx 1/3.

Sandhurst has recently been given a bit of a new broom and I was there a couple of weeks ago trying to ascertain how they had changed in the light of operational experiences. I will see if I can write up my notes this week and publish. I know that they have trialled Ex Caractacus, a complex COIN TEWT set in Wales circa AD 100.

[baboon6]

I have never understood why we do not require all male officers to graduate from Infantry basic training, with the ranks and then do a short 4-month "Officer School/Selection" followed by special to arm training. What "Officer School" consists of is open to discussion, but looking at Sandhurst and the current system challenges my objectivity. I see no merit versus alternatives.

That would be a lot like the system used by the British Army in WW2 which by 1942 went something like this:

6 weeks basic training at a Primary Training Centre
War Office Selection Board, usually for those coming straight from a PTC followed by a pre-OCTU course of a few weeks. Some went through 3 months or so at an Infantry Training Centre/RAC or RA Training Regt etc before WOSB.
4-6 months at an Officer Cadet Training Unit, depending on the type of establishment and time of the war. There were several OCTUs for each arm or service.

Serving private soldiers and NCOs could also be recommended for officer training provided they passed the WOSB.

[JMA]

Just for information I have copied below the Training Objectives (TO) for the Commissioning Course at Sandhurst. Sandhurst remains different from other military academies in that it is a one year course focused on producing leaders to fill platoon command slots; it is not academically orientated.

TO1 Demonstrate combat fitness
TO2 Handle and fire platoon weapon systems
TO3 Navigate across country
TO4 Apply battlefield first aid
TO5 Carry out basic fieldcraft
TO6 Operate in a CBRN environment (Chem, bio and nuclear)
TO7 Officership Ethics, integrity, values and standards
TO8 Command
TO9 Perform Military Duties (including drill)
TO10 Communicate Effectively
TO11 Spare
TO12 Lead Individual and Team Training (adventure training, cadet platoon projects, sports et al)
TO13 Spare
TO14 Operate IT/IM Equipment
TO15 Lead a Platoon
TO16 Operate Tactical Communications Systems
TO17 Apply knowledge of Tactics
TO18 Analyse British Military Doctrine
TO19 Analyse Military performance in Current Conflicts
TO20 Analyse the Current Political and Strategic Context
TO21 Describe Structure and Roles of the British Armed Forces
TO22 Explain the Capabilities And Operating Environment of a Battle Group


Exercises take up 43% of programmed time. Exercises are the vital tool as vehicles both to support lessons taught under the majority of the TOs , for cadets to display the skills of leadership and command and for the DS to assess those skills and the cadets’ suitability for a commission.

It is accepted wisdom that it is only by placing cadets in conditions of physical and mental stress that their endurance and resilience can be properly tested. Whilst the exercise programme is heavy and resource intensive it should be remembered that for the majority the realities of operations are imminent on completion of Course.

The cadets also do a staff ride in Normandy which gives the cadets the chance to practise estimate and decision making against the backdrop of a past campaign. This is a challenging exercise which sees the integration of civilian and military staff at its best.

One needs to sit and work through this in greater detail to make comment but I would say TO18-21 maybe inserted as a nice to have rather than serve any real purpose. I sometimes think it unfair on the youngsters to give them a taste of critical thinking only to see their initiative and enthusiasm dashed by the "system" later. At the School of Infantry I took both a National Service Officer course and a Regular Cadet Course (1 year). I agree with the one year highly practical approach but not sure of the Normandy bit though (maybe more of a jolly for the DS What about 3-4 weeks in Afghanistan? Take them on an op get them into a contact or two? (seriously)

[JMA]

Depends on the unit, and branch. Reuven Gal's "Portrait of an Israeli Soldier" describes the whole process in detail. - (and book recommended to me by General Sir John Kiszely)

Essentially, you have to pass out of basic training with a good score, be selected to do the JNCO course, and the best of those go on to be officers, while having served as JNCOs in the unit, to the satisfaction of the Commanding officer. It's very much about character, and ability.

The current COS, Gabi Askenazi comes from an very impoverished and disadvantaged back ground. It is said, his introduction to combat and vigilance, was guarding the family's one chicken! Maybe an apocryphal story.

Thanks, amazing what can be found in google books.

It seems as follows (depending on what arm you are in):

Basic training 3-4 months
Service approx 13-14 months
Officer training 4-6 months

Then this:

“Those who complete the officer courses will be commissioned as 2nd lieutenants and will return to their units (generally the same units where they served as regular soldiers and NCOs) and will be assigned to the position of platoon commander. The IDF officer is thus commissioned after twenty to twenty-four months military service, and with his acceptance of his commission, he acquires an additional twelve months of active duty time beyond the usual three years mandatory service. Accordingly the IDF can count on having these new officers for approximately two years of active duty after commissioning…”