Army Officer Commercial

[Greyhawk]

"...all us old guys who are just jaded, not stupid."

True - I neglected to add this to the end of my line you quoted.

What shouldn't be overlooked in this discussion is that regardless of what career path one chooses in life one will experience a lifelong compromise between the inner Massengale and the inner Damon, and a lifetime of interaction with others who at various times will exhibit qualities of either if observed long enough. (They have their own inner struggle, after all.) While Once an Eagle set that conflict against a military background it could certainly have been done within a corporate or academic setting, too. The author chose that with which he was familiar, which was also a setting that would have broad appeal (in circa-1970 America) and provide action sequences.

There's an incident early in the book (Damon's pre-military life) where he knocks someone down a flight of stairs. One can read the book for a full examination of the circumstances surrounding that. But the book details a full life, and as with most fiction takes its characters along an arc wherein they are changed. Much about the book - including the length - is certainly outdated by today's standards, but due to that length it shouldn't be characterized by events in chapter one.

So, setting the book aside: Damon and Massengale are no more or less than caricatures of something that exists in part in each of us, and not unique to military life. I believe those of us in the mid-latter chapters - jaded though we may be - hope those in the earlier continue to progress with enthusiasm for the task.

[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.

Understood. Perhaps "tail" wasn't the best way of describing it, as it is both our tail and the tails of the other services and other functions that are not really tails, but additional heads placed on other bodies.

I was providing the numbers from my battalion just to demonstrate that - at least at BN level - the ratio is not too out of whack. Those number include the FSO's and the PA - remove them and the ratio nears 20:1.

Agree regarding BDE being the most important measure. That is probably the best cross section of types of units, as it seems to be the clearing house where all of the alphabet soup of random 3- to 15-member teams seem to come from.

[Courtney Massengale]

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.

Unethical, immoral, illegal and unsafe are just fine and dandy and are, in fact, encouraged to increase your cult of personality – just don’t get caught.

If that’s what being a Sam Damon is all about…

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.

The aura of imminent failure was so great that H.W. had to declare that it would "not be another Vietnam".

The aura of confidence was so great that W. flew onto an aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished.

Nothing changed?

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.

My roommate has spent four of the past six years in Iraq. His marriage of 17 years is being “easily affected”. (Oh by the way, he hasn’t taken a second wife or gone to the manlove as is the local custom in this part of the world.)

Every day that I have to turn an Iraqi citizen away from US forces and into the hands of our less capable Iraqi counterparts for matters that could very well be life or death, I’m doing something that to me is unpleasant (down right manslaughter), but what is required to keep in the good graces of our masters.

As for advocating war, where is the line between advocating war and advocating how to conduct a war? More than a few careers have been made and broken over the past few years…

Just some thoughts.

What shouldn't be overlooked in this discussion is that regardless of what career path one chooses in life one will experience a lifelong compromise between the inner Massengale and the inner Damon, and a lifetime of interaction with others who at various times will exhibit qualities of either if observed long enough. (They have their own inner struggle, after all.)

Amen. You have found the words that elude me and hit the nail on the head. We can’t be one without acknowledging the other. Anyone who professes to be the embodiment of either is a fool who does not know himself.

[Ken White]

Unethical, immoral, illegal and unsafe are just fine and dandy and are, in fact, encouraged to increase your cult of personality – just don’t get caught...If that’s what being a Sam Damon is all about…

I'm not about to defend a fictional character to someone bearing the name of another but I will suggest you put it in the context of the times as far the book went. It shines a spotlight on people; some of their actions were in tune with a different time when there was more violence about and other moral and behavioral differences were more prevalent; some of the actions and attitudes are timeless -- like just don't get caught. That's sure still with us...

The aura of imminent failure was so great that H.W. had to declare that it would "not be another Vietnam".

The aura of confidence was so great that W. flew onto an aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished.

Nothing changed?

Since both were stupid mistakes by sitting Presidents, apparently not

As for aura of imminent failure, I was working in an involved Headquarters at the time, we had a Pool on how long it would take. SF LTC won it, I was third and most of clustered around 30--50 days. The longest period picked by any of 30 plus folks was 90 days. Some of the other Civilian Employees thought we were terrible for having a pool on a war with death and destruction guaranteed. Oh, well...

Politicians often say foolish things, best not to put much stock in them.

My roommate has spent four of the past six years in Iraq. His marriage of 17 years is being “easily affected”.

Move goalposts often? Of course it's been affected, any marriage would be affected -- but that's not what you said earlier, that was: "they’re caught in a marriage that the military has sucked the love out of..." Not quite the same thing. My marriage was affected by a bunch of deployments -- but the love wasn't sucked out of it.

(Oh by the way, he hasn’t taken a second wife or gone to the manlove as is the local custom in this part of the world.)

Lot of both going around here in the States, much less there.

The Army merely says it will expose you to other cultures, it doesn't insist you like or agree with them but it does want you to accord them at least surface respect. Bummer, but it goes with the territory.

Every day that I have to turn an Iraqi citizen away from US forces and into the hands of our less capable Iraqi counterparts for matters that could very well be life or death, I’m doing something that to me is unpleasant (down right manslaughter), but what is required to keep in the good graces of our masters.

Good graces of your Masters? The US civilian Politicians that signed an agreement saying we would do that? Surely you aren't calling the Iraqis your Masters -- even if it is their country...In any event, if that distresses you, I can understand that and would feel the same way -- have in fact in other places at other times -- however, if it REALLY distresses you, then another line of work may be indicated. That BTW is not a knock or a pejorative but a serious thought. Sort of like the less capable bit, probably true but they are different, no question. The serious thought is that's a strange area of the world in many respects, much that is very different. But then, so the Far East, so's South America.

As for advocating war, where is the line between advocating war and advocating how to conduct a war? More than a few careers have been made and broken over the past few years…

They are in peace time also -- careers made and broken that is. They also were in previous wars. Probably will be in the next one also. One after that, too, most likely. That, too goes with the territory.

The difference in advocating war and advocating how to conduct warfare it is best explained by the Marines who have long said "Nobody wants to fight a war but somebody better know how."

Just some thoughts.

Thoughts are always good, particularly if they are accepting of other views or at least willingness to consider them. Helps if they do not lead to a "My brilliance is all encompassing " outlook and one realizes that other opinions don't have to be heeded but they aren't necessarily invalid or wrong.

Anyone who professes to be the embodiment of either is a fool who does not know himself.

We can agree on that, fiction is fiction.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

had to go to the Army site to watch the video since YouTube is verboten here. It seems to be a pretty good production but I still wonder when the Army is going to seriously start considering hiring from within. There are now thousands of highly qualified, dare I say it, enlisted soldiers who would make outstanding officers since they have led other soldiers in combat and understand what it takes. Oh, but many lack a piece of paper that officially says they’re smart. So they do not qualify.

Had to dig around the site so it took a while to find this.

Great the “Green to Gold” path for enlisted personnel to become officers. Except one small obstacle on the last page: there are only 165 slots per school year. That to me is criminal. If the Army truly needs officers, and needs them now, the number should be almost 10 times that. Plus they should be pushing it a lot harder rather than burying it deep on the web site.

[Kevin23]

had to go to the Army site to watch the video since YouTube is verboten here. It seems to be a pretty good production but I still wonder when the Army is going to seriously start considering hiring from within. There are now thousands of highly qualified, dare I say it, enlisted soldiers who would make outstanding officers since they have led other soldiers in combat and understand what it takes. Oh, but many lack a piece of paper that officially says they’re smart. So they do not qualify.

Had to dig around the site so it took a while to find this.

Great the “Green to Gold” path for enlisted personnel to become officers. Except one small obstacle on the last page: there are only 165 slots per school year. That to me is criminal. If the Army truly needs officers, and needs them now, the number should be almost 10 times that. Plus they should be pushing it a lot harder rather than burying it deep on the web site.

What I've been reading about the Green to Gold issue and I don't know how much truth there is to this, is that quite a few enlisted soldiers in the Army don't want to go through the process of becoming a mustang. Because some enlisted men and women feel that their prospects are better in the civilian world both employment wise and educational wise. However despite hearing this I think the Green to Gold program should be expanded as there are many enlisted soldiers who would be more then willing to go through the process of becoming an Army officer. In addition there is a fair and growing number of enlisted men and women who already hold college and other advanced degrees. Why not target them as perspective officer candidates as they already have the educational background to become officers, they just need the training.

[Schmedlap]

I would be curious to know how common degrees are among enlisted Soldiers. I had several Soldiers who had Bachelor degrees and at least one who had a Masters. But they seemed to enjoy being NCOs. We encouraged them to at least consider OCS. No takers. I do not see it as a loss. They would have made good Officers. But they are also good NCOs, which helps make life easier for any Officers above them and helps to offset the impact of any bad Officers who might end up in their chain of command.

Side note: Above paragraph only pertains to my active duty experience. When I was an Infantry platoon leader in the National Guard, there were only 6 Soldiers in my platoon with less college credit than me (also the only 6 who were younger than me - go figure). One of my squad leaders was working on his PhD. Also had at least one self-made millionaire.

[tankersteve]

All my real studs went WOCS for the flight training. I talked to some of my guys about Green-to-Gold, but most were not interested. They saw the timelines kept by company commanders in garrison and really thought it sucked. Meetings, meetings, powerpoint, powerpoint. And of course, most good NCOs want to keep the real studs as fellow NCOs.

I think we as an Army could target these guys a lot harder. Green to Gold is tough for a guy with a family - no income worth mentioning if the guy is married/has kids. OCS actually increased the college requirement (the number of hours required to get into OCS) in the past few years, making it hard for guys with less than 3 years of college to be commissioned this way. And the opportunity to attend school (evenings, weekends) has significantly dropped, especially for combat arms guys, the last few years....

Some worry that we would gut the NCO Corps but I don't think the impact will be that severe. It would be truly amazing if the Army could ever get ahead of itself in manpower - officer, NCO and enlisted - with a comprehensive and well-thought out plan that interests the average American in service to the country. We always seem to be running to catch up with half-baked programs.

Tankersteve

[Starbuck]

I will second the WOCS/Flight school packet.

Rarely do I have Soldiers looking for the green-to-gold program. The WOCS program is instant gratification--you go straight in, do a few weeks of WOC school, and you start making WO1 pay and flight pay. (I should also note that my experience is skewed because I'm in an aviation unit)

Am I remembering Green-to-Gold correctly as 4 years of E5 pay? I remember a number of G2G students in college who still had to work another job in addition to school.

[davidbfpo]

Ha ha, you thought you guys were rich on officers:

NZ Ratios are as follows:
Army 1 : 5.0
Navy 1 : 3.4
AirF 1 : 3.0

US ratios are:

Army 1 : 5.2
USMC 1 : 8.8
Navy 1 : 5.4
USAF 1 : 4.1
USCG 1 : 4.1

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

According to figures given to the UK parliament and cited in: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files...ish_dorman.pdf (Pg.s 15 & 16)

In 2008

Army 1 : 7.1
Navy 1 : 5.1
AirF 1 : 4.4

In 2008 for all three armed services using consolidation of officer ranks to army equivalents, for an all ranks total of 187,100; we have 140 major generals, 350 brigadiers, 1180 colonels, 4070 lieut.colonels, 9600 majors, 11900 captains and 4460 lieut / 2nd lieut. A total of 31,700 officers for 155,300 other ranks.

The cited source has more details and criticism. Note the Royal Marines are within the navy figures and our coastguard is not within the military.

davidbfpo

[Cavguy]

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 ?


Mike

As Schmed pointed out, it's about 1:14 on the line.

Also be aware we have added a lot to the TO&E of a line BN since WW II, beside powerpoint requirements. Many functions that were once at much higher levels are done at BN, requiring extra officers. As far as primary staff, a line BN should have approx:

BN CDR
1 XO
1 S3 Operations
2-3 S3A
1 Fire Support Officer (works for S3)
1 CHEMO (works for S3)
1 S6 SIGO
1 S1 Adjutant
1 S2 MI
1 AS2 BICC (MI)
1 S4 Logistics
1 Air Liaison Officer (USAF)

Optional but often found:

1 S5/S9 Civil Military Ops OIC
1 Battalion Maintenance Officer
1 Host Nation Security Forces LNO
1 Intelligence/Surveillance/Reconnaissance Manager
1 S4 Assistant (LT)

So about 16 officers or so on staff. Five line companies equals another 25-30 or so. (CO CDR, XO, 3-4 PL's) So the low 40's for a BN of officers is standard, and has been for awhile.

You really see staffs growing at BCT levels right now, due to the shift to the BCT of many functions once handled by divisions. You'd be shocked what a BCT has to synchronize on today's battlefield, and it takes a fair number of experienced personnel. BN hasn't grown that much.

WW II is a poor analogy, because the primary "maneuver" elements were divisions and corps, not Companies and BN's. Assets were held and coordinated at those levels.

[jmm99]

thank you for the complete rundown. Schmedlap mentioned the 8 Coys in his Bn (56 Os & ca. 800 EM). I took three support coys from the 1945 regimental chart and dropped them down to Bn level - result 62 Os. The ratio in support coys was about 13:1.

The main difference between WWII and present in infantry Bns came in the very large ratio in the rifle coys because of the larger squad size (12 men, including squad leader) - so, 40 men in a rifle platoon (3x12 + 1 O + 3 HQEM). 3 of them, plus a weapons pl and HQ pl not much smaller (with only 3 more Os). I'll post the setup for a 1 Jan 1945 rifle coy and a weapons co tonite.

Quite a bit of EM redundancy in WWII, which turned out to be useful. E.g., Charlie-1/117-30ID had two engagements (Mortain & Siegfried), where it had casualties on the first day of each at about 50% and 40% of tabled manpower.

As you correctly point out, WWII is not an analogy to the present; nor, did I intend it to be so. As Tom Odom once pointed out, we are not presently in the process of driving from the Rhine to the Elbe.

In 30ID, the regiments tended to be primary "maneuver" elements because of the way the division commander ran his show.

Regards

Mike

[82redleg]

Per FKSM 71-8, APR 08
HBCT: 324:3393 = 1:10.47
BCT HHC: 45 /12 /106
BSTB: (30 / 7 / 398) (1:10.57)
HHC: 15 / 1 / 165
SIG CO: 4 / 1 / 65
MI CO: 5 / 5 / 83
EN CO: 6 / 0 / 145
CAB (x2): (52 / 1 / 781) 1:14
HHC: 27 / 0 / 194
IN CO (x2): 5 / 0 / 131
AR CO(x2): 5 / 0 / 59
FSC: 5 / 1 /207
ARS (39 / 1 / 478) (1:11.95)
HHT: 22 / 0 / 115
RECON TRP (x3): 4 / 0 / 78
FSC: 5 / 1 / 129
FA BN (30 / 3 / 447) (1:13.54)
HHB: 15 / 2 / 106 (including specialty TGT ACQ sections)
HOW BTRY (x2): 5 / 0 / 102
FSC: 5 / 1 / 137
BSB (40 / 11 / 402) (1:7.88)
HHC: 17 / 3 / 67
DISTRO CO: 5 / 2 / 177
MAINT CO: 4 / 6 / 95
MED CO: 14 / 0 / 63

[82redleg]

Same reference for IBCT: 271 / 3168 (1:11.69)

HHC, BCT: 58 / 97

STB: 34 / 397 (1:11.67)

IN BNx2: 52 / 768 (1:14.77)

RECON SQDN: 40 / 422 (1:10.55)

FA BN: 33 / 352 (1:10.6)

BSB: 49 / 364 (1:7.4)

[82redleg]

Same source, for SBCT: 352 / 3874 (1:11.0)

HHC, BCT 63/145

EN CO: 6 / 137

MI CO: 9 / 70

SIG CO: 6 / 57

AA CO: 6 / 48

IN BN (x3): 43 / 654 (1:15.2)

RSTA: 42 / 395 (1:9.4)

FA BN: 36 / 364 (1:10)

BSB: 55 / 696 (1:12.65)

[82redleg]

I got lazy, and just did BN # after the HBCT- same with combining Os & WOs after the HBCT.

[Massengale]

Boy, I do some work for a couple days, actually get internet access and I see all this. (the BCT breakdowns are missing a couple officers btw.)

1. I never said that people not from the coasts were hicks (heck, LI and NJ have a higher-than average percentage of them anyway!). My father is from IA and my mother is from MN (most definitely not a hick state btw). And, heck, UT might be the most well-traveled state in the country. I do think that the statistical distribution by state of passports per capita and the relative rankings of state school systems (ok, is it really news to anyone that the deep south has the worst school systems in the country? is it really controversial that that fact is unfortunate from the military perspective insofar as we prefer better-educated EM and officers?).

2. I never said anything about semesters abroad. Affluent people from the coasts travel the world because that's what affluent people from the coasts do. Some of it's just because it's easier to fly to Paris or London from NY than it is to Des Moines from NY, some of it's just because traveling is a way of life. That background, in and of itself, is useful. So are the accompanying language skills.

3. Since we are obviously talking in broad statistical generalizations, I'm not certain why some were bringing up specific individuals and their backgrounds. But if you're going to do that you might as well mention the origins of Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystal. But agreed that's all irrelevant.

4. No one addressed a major point. No one. The coasts are filled with millions of first generation immigrants from around the world...places where the Army will end up. They have valuable language skills and cultural knowledge. We ignore the coasts to our detriment. (And I completely disagree with the statement that "cultural sensitivity is unnecessary for COIN." That's so wrong it's not even wrong.)

5. Yes, kids from urban backgrounds aren't as ready for a variety of traditional Army skills that are more woodland based (here's looking at you Ranger School). Nevermind that the world grows more urban every year and it's urban areas that pose the greatest difficulty for us.

6. Ultimately, as I said, we need people from every background. But right now 40% of new officers are from the South and almost 0% from the Northeast. That's my point.

[Massengale]

oh, and I thought Once an Eagle was a pretty poorly written book that displayed some passion in need of an editor.

thus my moniker.

[Kiwigrunt]

Hmmm, these numbers so far are looking a bit embarrassing for us Kiwi’s. Now for the Navy it’s easy to explain; more than half of both of our boats are so small they only need a captain. And for the RNZAF, the three maintenance crew take turns at setting the clock back on the hecilopter (I’m too little to say a big word like flopticopter)

On a slightly more serious note now,

Davidbfpo:

According to figures given to the UK parliament and cited in: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files...ish_dorman.pdf (Pg.s 15 & 16)

In 2008

Army 1 : 7.1
Navy 1 : 5.1
AirF 1 : 4.4

In 2008 for all three armed services using consolidation of officer ranks to army equivalents, for an all ranks total of 187,100; we have 140 major generals, 350 brigadiers, 1180 colonels, 4070 lieut.colonels, 9600 majors, 11900 captains and 4460 lieut / 2nd lieut. A total of 31,700 officers for 155,300 other ranks.

I was about to state that UK and US are quite similar with the UK army being a nice average between US army and USMC…….until I discovered that the rates that Davidbfpo indicated are not accurate. (I’m a numbers-man more than a words-man. I was checking your link to find the ranks-layout for army only.) You divided the total by the number of officers, instead of the number of ORs by the number of officers. So it should read:

Army 1 : 6.2
Navy 1 : 4.1
RAF 1 : 3.5

In the NZ numbers, officer cadets are included. If we exclude them for the army, the ratio would be 1 : 5.5 (not stating this as a pissing contest, just that, well, I am a numbers-man and sometimes analy so)



Cavguy:

So about 16 officers or so on staff. Five line companies equals another 25-30 or so. (CO CDR, XO, 3-4 PL's) So the low 40's for a BN of officers is standard, and has been for awhile.

You really see staffs growing at BCT levels right now, due to the shift to the BCT of many functions once handled by divisions. You'd be shocked what a BCT has to synchronize on today's battlefield, and it takes a fair number of experienced personnel. BN hasn't grown that much.

Even 82redleg’s brigade numbers show a ratio of around 1 : 11, which is still a far cry from the army average of around 1 : 5/6.
I believe arty (for instance) are a bit higher on their officer ratios, other than that, I think this still applies:

So the 'excess' is to be found where Cavguy and Ken have identified them, above and to the peripherals of the combat units.

Another thing I have noticed, in both UK and NZ army, is the relatively low number of lieutenants. That makes the bottom of the pyramid a lot narrower than I would ever have guessed it.


And for those interested or with nothing better to do (like me at the moment), visit youtube for a NZ army recruitment clip, a NZ army promo (note the reflective safety belt a quarter of the way through) and a NZSAS promo.

[82redleg]

Field Artillery is slightly higher than IN in the BCTs- a 44 man FA platoon has a PL and an FDO- a 39 man rifle platoon has only the PL. This evens out when you add the staff, med, CSS, etc.

Fires BDEs FA BNs will have a higher ratio (because MLRS sections are smaller), but they don't have FDOs, either. I'll have to find an MTOE and run the #s.

Echelons above BDE will have a higher ratio, as they are composed of HQs and staffs. Also, the Army sends alot more officers to school longer than enlisted, so, for example, approximately 20% of MAJs are at FT Leavenworth for CGSC/SAMS at any given time. There is also OBC, CCC and War College- the only enlisted comparison is the Sergeant Major Academy, which I think is 600+/- in any given class. All these #s will skew the data.

I used the FKSM 71-8, dated APR 2008. It doesn't exactly match the BCT I came from, or probably any other BCTs MTOE- it allegedly reflects the base TOE. I'd be interested in which you think I missed.