Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Most armies need to use a flame thrower to clean out their systems and shake off these relics of a past social order.
Agree.
This butterfly approach that the US military seem to apply to officer postings where they flit from one post to the next without spending enough time in any one to benefit significantly from the experience.
Also agree...
On a 'mission basis'? How would that work?
The LTs are given peacetime / garrison duties that let them understand the mechanics of the system; they are given field training or exercise missions in temporary command of elements -- A Squad, section ,Platoon or parts thereof assembled for the specific task at hand. Sometimes a platoon plus MGs and /or a mortar or AT weapons, a mix of vehicles / elements for other than walking Infantry -- all sorts of combination. In training, designed for their training value and to develop flexibility and familiarize both the LT and the Troops to working with different approaches and persons. In combat of course the only focus would be to best accomplish the task at hand.
What period are we talking about here?
I tend to agree with your three year spans...
Why this sub-optimal solution when the obvious one stares you in the face?
First, because there is NO optimal solution. The issue is to impart knowledge and capability in lieu of experience, so nothing is going to do that too well. Secondly, among all less than optimal solutions IMO the one that develops trust of unknown persons with adequate experience or training level and promotes flexibility in thought and outlook is preferable to one that encourages trust of only the familiar ("I know him so I can trust him...") and which constrains flexibility due to excessive but natural adherence to organizational lines. Pursue those two lines of thought for a bit...

Thirdly, the "obvious" solution is not obvious, it's just the way we've done it for centuries. that does NOT mean its optimal. Nor does the fact that you and many others were well served in the training and learning processes by your particular experience counter the fact that a good many -- perhaps more -- are not so well served by it.
I went the route of first serving in the ranks. First did my conscript training in SA, followed by full recruit training (20 weeks) followed by six months operational, followed by full 12 month officers course (then some years later was myself course officer on a 12 month officers course). I believe I understand the process differences in the training approach.
You understand what you -- to use your word from above -- flitted through as an Enlisted guy.

I submit a year as Joe Tentpeg is not enough time to say that one has learned what it's like to be a Private Soldier or, even more important, a junior NCO.

That said, 12 months for a new LTs course seems about right -- and serving as an instructor in such a course, which not everyone does, was / is bound to be enormously helpful in learning what makes new LTs tick.
It is for this main reason (as I stated before) that one can not reduce officer training courses by the length of a recruit course where candidates have been through that mill already.
Yes.
My personal experience (of first doing a recruit course and then serving some operational time) was such that I would make it an essential route to a commission if I were so able. The minimum of a year is well spent in that. Is there a maximum? Probably three years where the entry age was 18.
We're in near agreement. IMO the minimum should be 18 months operational or in-unit service (not counting recruit or initial entry training which I think should be about six months, perhaps more if (as is true in the US army), esoteric, non military but societal 'training' is also included. Three to four years should indeed be about the maximum and service as a junior NCO should be a 'plus' in the selection criteria. However, commissioning of longer serving persons (and not just as Lieutenants...) should be reasonably common. In the US, the Marines do that better than does the Army and the British system of commissioning senior NCOs toward the end of their service for specific and normally limited duties is good. The world is full of late bloomers...
Rhodesia worked pretty much according to the British system but had much more flexibility to adapt to the developing war situation as it was unencumbered by suffocating tradition and bureaucratic restraint. There were still many problems some of which were adequately addressed (some not).
Always going to be true; we humans are imperfect...

Still, in my experience, the Commonwealth Armies do a much better job of teaching and training the basics than does the US. We could and should adapt some of their practices. In fact, we have -- we just discarded the good and picked the wrong things to keep.
Now because the majority of young US officers have a superficial platoon commanding experience that does not mean that this experience (certainly in the war environments recently and currently available) is not without value. If nobody has it then you are in no position to miss it. To agree that it has value would imply that the US officer corps is somehow lacking which is not about to be acknowledged anytime soon.
I agree with all that but also must note that reality is a bitch and must be dealt with. The US Army is (and others are) not likely to change. The current system has evolved over time and does work. That doesn't mean one should not try other ways. Armies are bureaucracies with closed minds. People, fortunately, are not as loth to experiment and try new idea and things...