Initial Officer Selection

[Fuchs]

The best wartime recruiting scheme is imo to approach proved NCOs who showed the necessary potential.

The best peacetime recruiting scheme is imo still to be attractive for a far too large quantity of applicants and then be able to pick the most promising ones in an assessment centre approach (btw, the latter was pioneered by the Prussian army pre-WWI).


The situation as of now seems to be that
* we apply peacetime mechanisms because we're 'not enough' at war for a real wartime mode
and
* we fail to attract enough applicants for a well-done peacetime mechanism.

This "we" means "just about every country on earth".



IIRC even wartime officer courses of the Wehrmacht (can't vouch for this) required to dismiss 40% of those who attended the course back to their NCO life.

[JMA]

The best wartime recruiting scheme is imo to approach proved NCOs who showed the necessary potential.

If one assumes that the value of direct entry officers (which I do) is that you get to produce experienced senior officers young enough to actively and energetically command brigades/divisions/corps/armies. The platoon/company command phase is merely an 'apprenticeship' to gain the operational insight and experience required for higher command.

To keep this in mind one has to work backwards from the estimated number of generals an army needs to figure out how many 'quality' officers one needs to commission every year.

By all means make up the numbers of the up to field officer ranks from NCOs who may be of an age which may limit them to say a maximum of Lt Col. But be wary of denuding the NCO structures of the quality that makes them the backbone of the army as a result.

My position has always been that an army does not need lieutenants to command platoons (senior sergeants have done that before) but lieutenants who have aspirations of higher command need to gain the experience of commanding a platoon (preferably in combat) for as long as possible.

Yes I accept that during wartime many things change as the attrition rates demand rapid replacements... but something as got to give... and that is normally quality.

The best peacetime recruiting scheme is imo still to be attractive for a far too large quantity of applicants and then be able to pick the most promising ones in an assessment centre approach (btw, the latter was pioneered by the Prussian army pre-WWI).

Can you explain what you mean by "an assessment centre approach".

The situation as of now seems to be that
* we apply peacetime mechanisms because we're 'not enough' at war for a real wartime mode
and
* we fail to attract enough applicants for a well-done peacetime mechanism.

This "we" means "just about every country on earth".

The selection process is not IMHO dependent upon war or peace. Length of training probably does though.

In addition, I am still not sure why there is a need for a degree before commissioning when there is plenty of time in a 25-30 year career to take three or so years for the purpose (around the senior Capt/Maj level for the infantry). Too much time and money (again IMHO) is invested in training of officers the majority of whom (it seems) will leave the service before they have justified the initial expense.

IIRC even wartime officer courses of the Wehrmacht (can't vouch for this) required to dismiss 40% of those who attended the course back to their NCO life.

Yes, that is how it worked in Rhodesia despite having used the Brit AOSB system which I say is an indictment of either the AOSB system or how it was run there back then. The Brit approach (as I understand it) is that passing the AOSB virtually assures one of a commission as the onus passes to the course instructors to 'develop' the cadets over the period of the course. Not sure that is the best way either.

IMHO those that pass the AOSB should get commissioned but for the reason that the AOSB selection mechanisms are accurate and as a result the cadet is worthy of a commission in the end.

[Fuchs]

Assessment centre approach means to keep them busy, challenged and under observation for a long enough time (days) that they cannot fake qualities that they don't possess.

[SethB]

Selection and development need to be separated, or you will accomplish neither.

The USMC OCS model is the most successful that I can think of for this very reason.

[Ulenspiegel]

@Seth B

One interisting aspect of the officer selection in the Prussian army and Reichswehr was that the CO of the regiment the officer candidate would join did the final decision whether the candidate is accepted or rejected.

Later (3-4 years after commission) the same CO would deceide whether the officer attend the section process for staff officer training. You can combine selection and developement, however, the regiment CO needs a good vision of the product (officer) he has to produce.

@JMA
Do you propose a merger of NCO and officer corps?

[JMA]

@JMA
Do you propose a merger of NCO and officer corps?

No, not at all.

I believe that under the almost universal system officers and NCOs complement each other in making up the whole. There are specific skills required amongst the Officer corps as there are amongst the NCO corps. I don't believe you can mix and match the two without something getting compromised. There are a percentage of NCOs who display the skills required of an officer and who should be considered for officer training on application. But as I said in an earlier post IMHO care should be taken not to denude the NCO corps of its brightest and best (with the resultant massive downstream knock-on effect) in order to address a (normally short term) platoon commander shortage.

There is an old US Cavalry saying (I believe) which goes: "Officers come and officers go but the don't hurt the troop". This can only be true if the NCO structure is strong and intact.

In the doc Research and Study Group 31 - Officer Selection in the year under review only a small percentage of German officer candidates appear to have come through from the ranks.

I suggest that the officer function at company level be carefully kept in focus when discussing such matters. He is serving his apprenticeship for higher command. He needs the experience for this and he needs the support of quality NCOs to achieve this.

A thought that I kept in mind all the time and later never let any of the officer cadets under my control forget is that when you command a platoon you have 100-150 years of military service in your hands (when the total service of the platoon is added up)... and that is one massive responsibility which the army can not allow you to squander. (A believe you me any platoon sergeant worth his salt won't let you do so either).

I don't know the state of the NCO corps in various armies but I hear that in the Brit army the NCOs may not be what they once were. But the problem (one problem) is that the officer corps has its challenges. One of which seems to be the initial selection process which allows too many people through who are not up to the required standard.

Deal with this problem but do not tamper with the NCO structure in order to achieve a quick fix. That is what I am saying.

[Red Rat]

The UK AOSB is failing more candidates then ever before. Candidates are also scrutinised closely at the officer academy (Royal Military Academy Sandhurst - RMAS), especially those aspiring to the combat arms.

Royal Marines officers also had to undertake the Admiralty Interview Board (AIB) in addition to POC, although I am not sure if this is still the case.

The general consensus is that the UK officer selection procedure is providing both the number and quality of officers required - that at least is the opinion of commanders. Most debate within the UK army at the moment is less on officer selection and more on officer training and development; namely the RMAS syllabus and the tactics used in the field exercises there, as well as special to arm training (Basic Officers Course in the US terminology) after officer training.

I will see if I can get some hard statistics on AOSB pass/fail rates and those for RMAS.

[Ulenspiegel]

JMA, thank you for your long response, gave me some stuff to digest.

My question arose as the officer and NCO recruiting in Germany perfectly mirrowed the school system during the last 150 years. With dramatic changes in our educational system (dying of Hauptschule, much more Abiturienten) one question is how the armed forces are affected and how could we for example make NCO positions more attractiv for Abiturienten.

The low number of ACTIVE officers coming from the ranks is quite usual in the German army during peace time. You got a completely different answer, if you check reserve officers, many of them decided during the first six month of their mandatory service to serve longer and attend the required NCO courses.

[JMA]

Selection and development need to be separated, or you will accomplish neither.

The USMC OCS model is the most successful that I can think of for this very reason.

Just to see if we are on the same page here.

'Selection' takes place before the course begins (with the successful candidates being allowed to start the course) and 'development' takes place during the course itself (taking this raw material and moulding it into something vaguely resembling what is expected of a young officer).

How may I ask is the USMC model more successful in this regard?

[JMA]

Assessment centre approach means to keep them busy, challenged and under observation for a long enough time (days) that they cannot fake qualities that they don't possess.

Yes that is what I understand, thanks for the clarification.

Perhaps the following paper will be of value to you as it compares this selection process over the procedures of a number of countries:

Research and Study Group 31 - Officer Selection

Maybe you can help me here, but it does not appear that the current German system (as explained in the document) has a practical task phase (held outside as opposed to in a lecture room or equivalent). That said two days of tests is far better than a mere paper exercise (IMHO).