@JMA
Another concept would be the one found in the Roman army. You have centuriones which cover the ranks of sergeant - Lt. Col and came usually from the ranks, this means you merge the NCO corps with parts of the officer corps.
Genenerals (legates) had a different carier path.
My contention is that the insertion of direct entry officers half way up the rank structure can only be justified if there is a clear assessment that these people have the potential to reach and perform well as senior officers (battalion commanders and above). The initial pre-course selection must (IMHO) focus upon this end. Where such tighter selection criteria are used and results in shortages of company grade officers these should be made up through the promotion from the ranks (which should be done with due care to prevent the senior NCO ranks from being denuded of their brightest and their best and thereby reducing and demeaning the expected quality of company senior NCOs which has historically been the strength and backbone of the infantry).Originally Posted by Ulenspiegel
... and don't forget the yanks
In case anyone had come to believe that the yanks had faleen asleep behind the wheel on this one their 'best and brightest' officers (on Command and Staff course) periodically produce intelligent comment on this matter... but as they say 'it is extremely difficult to turn a supertanker in high seas'.
American Centurions: Developing U.S. Army Tactical Leadership for the Twenty-first Century
In this paper Major Timothy F. Watson in his conclusion states:
I agree (FWIW) and hope that this kind of thinking officer (probably by now a full Col or Brig) can figure out how to turn a supertanker in high seas...the U.S. Army should consider instituting a standardized assessment and selection board to screen officer candidates. The assessment and selection board identifies those most likely to succeed in pre-commissioning programs and as future officers thereby preserving the valuable resources dedicated towards developing leaders.
(Then) Maj Watson's paper is well worth a read.
You're obviously thinking of leading officers, but many(if not most) are rather specialists - either for staffs or for technicalities.
The German army hires medical doctors, construction engineers (bridge-building expertise for army engineers!) and the like whom it doesn't produce in its own university system (which is more about business, engineering, psychology etc). These fully-educated people could earn 60,000-100,000 € p.a. in civil jobs and need to get at least a respectable rank and associated pay or you'll only get the worst graduates. Afaik these officers entry around captain/major rank and reach LtCol quite easily (medical staff is very high-ranked in Germany). You basically give them a quick entry training about their powers and limits and then you've got a ready officer with a very much needed special proficiency.
This thread appears to focus on officers for leadership instead of officers for very education-intensive jobs. Maybe the title should be modified.
By the way, about company and Plt NCOs beign the backbone of an army: There was a time in germany when even Lt Generals in command of a division were competent enough to spot training deficiencies down to lack of navigation skill or skill with emplacing a machine gun on inspections (reminds me also of an American general who lead a platoon in an assault on a building during WW2 in order to teach the Lt how to do it). A very good basic soldiering competency of leading officers (Truppenoffizier) is certainly a great advantage.
Last edited by Fuchs; 09-14-2011 at 09:55 AM.
There was a time when even many high officers earned their Nahkampfspange or Panzervernichtungsabzeichen - close combat clasp and tank destruction badge, this is of course also a sign that something went wrong :-)
Is for an infantry/tank officer an university education during his/her fist 9 years really a good idea? From an academic POV it does not make sense.
If an officer decided to leave after 12 years, he/she should attend university during his last 2 or 3 years, then leave with a "fresh" graduation/diploma. If an officer decides to stay he could get an military graduation, i.e. staff officer courses.
Yes, probably mainly 'teeth arm' officers (infantry/armour) than other.
Again. yes. Direct entry by qualification is necessary for the likes of medical staff etc and yes there will be times when their pay may well be higher than the equivalent infantry officer of the same rank. For example the medical officer in a battalion can never be more than a major (as the CO is a Lt Col) but he may fall on a totally different pay scale.The German army hires medical doctors, construction engineers (bridge-building expertise for army engineers!) and the like whom it doesn't produce in its own university system (which is more about business, engineering, psychology etc). These fully-educated people could earn 60,000-100,000 € p.a. in civil jobs and need to get at least a respectable rank and associated pay or you'll only get the worst graduates. Afaik these officers entry around captain/major rank and reach LtCol quite easily (medical staff is very high-ranked in Germany). You basically give them a quick entry training about their powers and limits and then you've got a ready officer with a very much needed special proficiency.
This thread appears to focus on officers for leadership instead of officers for very education-intensive jobs. Maybe the title should be modified.
One certainly hopes that officers will retain their 'eye' for detail as they rise up the ranks.By the way, about company and Plt NCOs beign the backbone of an army: There was a time in germany when even Lt Generals in command of a division were competent enough to spot training deficiencies down to lack of navigation skill or skill with emplacing a machine gun on inspections (reminds me also of an American general who lead a platoon in an assault on a building during WW2 in order to teach the Lt how to do it). A very good basic soldiering competency of leading officers (Truppenoffizier) is certainly a great advantage.
In war time with general mobilisation the quality control thing starts to fall apart. But then the last two Brit Lt Cols (Jones and Thorneloe) to be KIA were way to far 'up front' for their rank and died needlessly.
The value of the NCO structure is making sure the 'blunt instrument' know as the infantry platoon can carry out their mission in unison with many other platoons simultaneously and with control and coherence. One leading officer no matter how proficient or experienced can do this alone.
Young officers at platoon/troop level have at best three years of platoon commanding (in my war - but it seems less in others these days). The NCOs spend much more time at this level and like with old wine they just get better with age (and experience). My contention is that this (platoon) structure (through which young officers fleetingly pass) must be protected and maintained at all costs.
(This said about the opportunity to command a platoon in battle should be what every young officer dreams of. I really can't believe that any 'bright eyed and bushytailed' young officer would be satisfied with getting a sniff of combat command for six months and then return to peacetime soldiering at home.)
Last edited by JMA; 09-14-2011 at 01:30 PM.
The academic studies aren't just for jobs after the 12-year team or for improved recruiting success among good school graduates.
It's most relevant for forming thought processes, for opening the mind to learning, science, methodologies, independent work and much more. Studying engineering is for example much, much tougher than the learning in an officer course.
I believe I remember having read that Petraeus confessed that after many years of military service and military learning his experience at some university was a shock. Suddenly, it wall all very difficult and he couldn't easily convince people any more (command authority makes this much, much easier, apparently...). He had to add a lot to his repertoire for success in such an environment.
There are furthermore experiences of armies that did not emphasize academic learning for officers and tended to neglect technical and organisational aspects of the military as well as intellectual thought about what combat arms should do and how.
That being said, I doubt that the German system with special universities for the armed services is a good idea. It would make more sense to expose the students to civilian life more and get a wider choice of specialisations, but that would in turn require that some normal universities introduce trimesters.
I don't have a problem with education per se.
I suggest that before the military invests hugely in an individual's higher education it should have a very good idea that he has general staff prospects.
As I have stated above there are two minimum standards to be set for potential officers and that being his attained education level (with the potential to study further) and physique and fitness level (with the ability to develop both further). Once you have put that stuff aside you will be able to concentrate on identifying the characteristics which are required of an officer.
The further education aspect can be revisited once he has been selected for training and passed the officer training course. With a bit of luck there may be a war on at the time and one can cycle the new officers through to gauge their combat performance. Thereafter as part of career development they can be sent to universities to do the appropriate courses. As I said put the horse before the cart.
I can't believe that it is worth the investment to put candidates through university degree before you are (pretty) sure they are likely to succeed. So when a premier military institution grades candidates on the following basis one tends to get a little worried;
Where one might ask is the assessment on leadership ability, tactical skill and understanding etc etc?A cadet's class rank, which determines his army branch and assignment upon graduation, is calculated as a combination of academic performance (55%), military leadership performance (30%), and physical fitness and athletic performance (15%)
If you select on this basis then I suggest you need to believe that leadership can be taught. Now that's another story.
I suggest we are in agreement on this. I have never been sold on the concept of military education whether high-school or university. These 'specialisations' I suggest should be selected to improve individual performance in the military environment.That being said, I doubt that the German system with special universities for the armed services is a good idea. It would make more sense to expose the students to civilian life more and get a wider choice of specialisations, but that would in turn require that some normal universities introduce trimesters.
The current German officer candidates pay IMHO a very high price for their university education, as they do not get a proper platoon commander training. They start in special officer companies and have seen and led only a few months enlisted men before they are promoted to Oberleutnant. Are they really able to perform their role as deputy company commander?
Compare this with the Reichwehr when a OC had to serve as enlisted man with enlisted men for two years (a little bit excessive:-), then he got 1.5 years officer training (he was now Fähnrich). He was promoted to Leutnant after 3.5 years and served 4-5 years before attending staff officer courses (=university). Why don't we use this template?
Hush! All things Reichswehr are evil, didn't you know?
As I mentioned before (in post#80) the bias is currently in favour of the academic in many (most?) cases. In the quote (I posted) it is 55% academic to 30% leadership performance with fitness and physical coming in at the remaining 15%. I believe that like the physical (which should be judged on a pass or fail basis - meaning you are either physically capable or you are not) the academic results should be based on whether the guy has absorbed enough of the theoretical part of the course to be able to draw on what he learned when operating in the field (again he is either able to do this or he is not). The initial precourse selection of aspirant officers must be that they are intellectually capable of passing a degree course within the military skills parameters.
Again I would state that the platoon commanding phase of an officers career is merely to provide the grounding and experience at that level to provide an understanding of how wars are fought on the front lines when he (at a higher command) sends soldiers into battle (from afar).
How much time and experience does an officer need at the platoon/company level? Perhaps another subject for discussion. Does an officer need to serve in the ranks before being commissioned? Perhaps another subject for discussion.
Regardless of whether the potential officer comes as direct entry or from the ranks my contention is that an accurate initial pre-course selection system will be beneficial and reduce the course attrition rates.
Well if the Reichwehr system was good then why does the current German not continue to use it? Surely the officer selection and training process can't be tainted by the past, can they?
If I understand you correctly it is the university education which conflicts with platoon commanding and training. Well if so that is why a speak of putting the horse before the cart. Which must be taken care of first? My view is that first you train and test for leadership and officer characteristics (at platoon level) then you select an education route most suited to his branch and career professional knowledge requirements. Remember the big picture. You are training future generals here.
Last edited by JMA; 09-15-2011 at 05:08 AM.
That's a long time to evaluate officer candidates before sending them off to university. The U.S. way is to have the guy have his degree beforehand.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks