Initial Officer Selection

[blueblood]

I don't want to get into an argument with you but I need to say that looking at those two videos no one can reach a definitive opinion on the quality or otherwise of the aspects of the Brit AOSB.

My interest in this subject is how best to structure the initial pre-course sekection process so as to reduce the attrition rate during the course itself.

I believe that on the information available the Brits run the most comprehensive pre-course selection process (the AOSB in two parts - first for two days then the 'main board' for four days). I hope to get a reply as to their attrition rate over the 44 weeks until commissioning.

Selection of youngsters with leadership potential does not have to be tough... it needs to be rigourous enough to be accurate... thats all.

I'm am also trying to get beyond the feel good situation that comes with the perception that those who pass are of the chosen few and get down to work out which is the most efficient system.

In this process I am constantly reminded what TE Lawrence said about the Brit officer around WW1 - that there was too much body and not enough mind - they have made progress in fixing this I believe (some believe the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction).

I apologize if I have offended you in any way. JMA, my grandfather was a British Indian Army officer from 1942-1950, so I was always under the impression that becoming an officer in Royal Army is a very tough nut to crack. But as I said, videos suggested the other way. I could be wrong, but the way I see it, that the cream of British population is shying away from the armed forces.

BTW, I do not have any doubt that the British training is still one of the best
in the world. I have seen a reality TV series about Royal Marines and their training was extremely good from what I judged from a layman's point of view.

[JMA]

I apologize if I have offended you in any way. JMA, my grandfather was a British Indian Army officer from 1942-1950, so I was always under the impression that becoming an officer in Royal Army is a very tough nut to crack. But as I said, videos suggested the other way. I could be wrong, but the way I see it, that the cream of British population is shying away from the armed forces.

Not that easily offended but thanks for the concern.

I suggest that if you cast your mind back to when you were 18-22 and consider who you would choose as a leader if you were to be confronted by a life or death situation. Would it be the biggest guy? The sttrongest guy? The one who could run the the furtherest, the fastest? Maybe none of the above. Maybe it would be difficult to explain/define/quantify how you selected him?

This is what I am tying to establish. What are these important intangibles and what is the best/most efficient/accurate way of selecting those with these characteristics.

BTW, I do not have any doubt that the British training is still one of the best in the world. I have seen a reality TV series about Royal Marines and their training was extremely good from what I judged from a layman's point of view.

Oh BTW I am not an apologist for the Brits.

Winston Churchill once said: "The Americans will always do the right thing . . . After they've exhausted all the alternatives." Sometimes the same must be said of the Brits as well.

The Royal Marines are up there with the best... but don't be fooled by a video.

[blueblood]

You're welcome.

I am 23 right now, so its a non issue.
I'll go with the smartest guy with a decent fitness level. If physical fitness alone is the criteria, then a NCO may be more qualified than an officer. AFAIK, officers are there to lead and plan whereas grunts are there for firepower.

I have never understood what Winston Churchill was. Sometimes he appeared to be a great leader, sometimes a plain fool and a liar. But that could be my prejudice for I am an Indian.

JMA, let me provide you some info about Indian recruitment procedure, so you can provide a fair assessment with respect to other armies.

For 10+2 - National Defence Academy (NDA), tri service.

http://nda.nic.in/html/nda-admission-details.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...Academy_(India)

For graduation and above

Combined Defence Servies (CDS)

A written exam, if cleared followed by a Services Selection Board (SSB).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Services_Selection_Board

http://arindam.wordpress.com/2008/02...ssb-interview/

Engineers if recruited from college campus can skip the entrance exam appear directly for SSB.

[Ken White]

Very impressive test and assessment cycle...

[JMA]

The Selection Process of Joining Bangladesh Army is well laid out in the blog.

[JMA]

In his blog our friend Fuchs has two enteries which connect to this issue:

"Natural", self-organised small units?

Self organization; online gamer clans and Germanic warbands

From the latter I quote:

The model with the best individual warrior being the leader is furthermore inherently inferior to a model which requires the leader to be a good leader. It's reasonable to assume that some evolutionary selection mechanism is at work in the realm of raiding warbands. This raises additional doubts about the standard description of ancient Germanic warbands.

If Fuchs would like to expand on that here in relation to how one can select for leadership prior to exposure in structured training (in peacetime) or in combat (during a war) it would be appreciated.

Certainly in the last ten years ample opportuniuties have presented themselves to test leadership of junior officers (and naturally NCOs) in combat settings to ascertain whether these officers are followed through alacrity or through the imposed system or through curiosity.

What has happened to those young officers who have found to be lacking? What should happen to those who have proved limited in this regard?

[JMA]

In an off-board discussion one military approached for stats has thrown up a bureaucratic wall. This is less a question of trying to hide something (IMHO) but rather a matter of bureaucrats flexing their muscles.

Simple statistics required are:

What percentage of those who apply for officer training pass the pre-course selection?

What percentage of those who start the course are commissioned at the end?

Not exactly a state secret... or is it?

Another statistic of value will be the number of those who 'drop-out' from the course do so on their own accord. In other words those who realise for one reason or tuther that this (military stuff) is really not for them.

[Ulenspiegel]

You need time for the bottom-up selection process. Therefore, this worked in societies/groups in which the difference between is and peace was quite small, the potential leader had ample of time to prove himself. For me it is quite obvious that nomades or people who hunt in larger groups can really gain from a buttom-up process, to a certain extend Swiss Reichsläufer or Landsknechte belong to the same group. Modern online gamer have of course the same opportunity.

Attemps with chosing superiors by the soldiers in armys of societies with large differences between war and peace usually fail (e.g. French revulution, ACW).