Is military rank structure obsolete?

[johnpjones1775]

I definitely agree with this, and I think most people probably would as well considering the number of memes about how stupid O-1 and O-2s are, often relying on an E-5 or even E-4s to ensure things actually get done, and that they themselves aren’t completely fucking things up.

The Obsolete Divide: We Need a New Rank System for the Future Fight - Modern War Institute

“Eliminate the red trousers? Never! The red trousers are France!”— French Minister of War Eugène Étienne, 1913 When the French Army went to war against Imperial Germany in August 1914, it did so with a military absolutely convinced of the superiority of its military traditions on the modern...

mwi.westpoint.edu

 

[TinWing]

I definitely agree with this, and I think most people probably would as well considering the number of memes about how stupid O-1 and O-2s are, often relying on an E-5 or even E-4s to ensure things actually get done, and that they themselves aren’t completely fucking things up.

The Obsolete Divide: We Need a New Rank System for the Future Fight - Modern War Institute

“Eliminate the red trousers? Never! The red trousers are France!”— French Minister of War Eugène Étienne, 1913 When the French Army went to war against Imperial Germany in August 1914, it did so with a military absolutely convinced of the superiority of its military traditions on the modern...

mwi.westpoint.edu

I’d argue that any person above a certain level of intelligence is totally unsuitable to be enlisted, hence the need for more warrant officers for specialist tasks and sending brighter recruits directly to OCS. There is reason why OCS exists and was so successful in creating good junior leaders in WWII. I’d argue that it takes a core of career NCOs to make the modern military function, but a successful lifer NCO is a very different beast than a good officer. Perhaps there is a need to create junior commissioned officer ranks, such as those used on the Indian subcontinent. Or perhaps there should be an equivalent NCO rank to the French army “Adjutant?” However, despite utterances of equality, there is still a very real personal distinction between enlisting and going through the hard work of getting a Congressional appointment to a service academy. It’s not a matter of class but of personal effort.

It used to be so difficult to get into a service academy that boy and his family had to decide at the age or 12 or 13…. And then work towards that goal. Making yourself known to your Congressman, even as a teenager. These days I suspect that it amounts to some indifferent congressional staffer reading essays. Service academies probably aren’t as competitive as they once were.

 

[Justo Miranda]

In the nearer future than many think, all robots will have the same experience and will be divided into categories based on serial numbers. The newest ones will have the most advanced software.

Humans will go about their business, as always, but no one will complain anymore that the bosses don't take risks on the front line of combat. End of an era.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I’d argue that any person above a certain level of intelligence is totally unsuitable to be enlisted, hence the need for more warrant officers for specialist tasks and sending brighter recruits directly to OCS. There is reason why OCS exists and was so successful in creating good junior leaders in WWII. I’d argue that it takes a core of career NCOs to make the modern military function, but a successful lifer NCO is a very different beast than a good officer. Perhaps there is a need to create junior commissioned officer ranks, such as those used on the Indian subcontinent. Or perhaps there should be an equivalent NCO rank to the French army “Adjutant?” However, despite utterances of equality, there is still a very real personal distinction between enlisting and going through the hard work of getting a Congressional appointment to a service academy. It’s not a matter of class but of personal effort.

It used to be so difficult to get into a service academy that boy and his family had to decide at the age or 12 or 13…. And then work towards that goal. Making yourself known to your Congressman, even as a teenager. These days I suspect that it amounts to some indifferent congressional staffer reading essays. Service academies probably aren’t as competitive as they once were.

Getting into a service academy very much is largely about class…or at least connections. My family is pretty well off but far from wealthy, however my uncle is the chief of staff for a congress woman. This means my niece and nephew have much better chances of getting a recommendation for West Point or Annapolis if they wanted to go that route than most if not everyone else they know or will know by that age. Even going to college has largely been an issue of sociology-economic class.
Luckily that’s not necessary to get a commission.

I think NCOs are only all that important because they provide leadership and experience that O-1 & O-2s don’t have simply because of how inexperienced they are, meaning having a path from forking from E-5 to O1 or E-6 and advancing from there. Possibly some how merging E-7+ and warrant officer ranks into one.

Another example of the divide that makes little to no sense is needing to be an officer to fly fixed wing aircraft

 

[TinWing]

Getting into a service academy very much is largely about class…or at least connections. My family is pretty well off but far from wealthy, however my uncle is the chief of staff for a congress woman. This means my niece and nephew have much better chances of getting a recommendation for West Point or Annapolis if they wanted to go that route than most if not everyone else they know or will know by that age. Even going to college has largely been an issue of sociology-economic class.
Luckily that’s not necessary to get a commission.

I think NCOs are only all that important because they provide leadership and experience that O-1 & O-2s don’t have simply because of how inexperienced they are, meaning having a path from forking from E-5 to O1 or E-6 and advancing from there. Possibly some how merging E-7+ and warrant officer ranks into one.

Another example of the divide that makes little to no sense is needing to be an officer to fly fixed wing aircraft

I’d argue that the US Army did quite well with warrant officers as helicopter pilots, so I see no reason why fixed wing aviation couldn’t be left to warrants as well - although the Air Force really does need to draw future senior leadership from pilots. Arguably, naval and marine aviation would be better served by shifting to warrant officers as pilots. As I recollect, one reason the Israeli Air Force was so successful in 1967 and 1973 is that they trained their aviators entirely as pilots first and then insisted on continuing education for career advancement.

 

[DWG]

If an essay is arguing about 'conscripted masses' in its third paragraph, when those forces weren't conscripted, then you have to wonder how well formed its other arguments are....

 

[Seragina]

It would be nice to have a simple system but the reality is the ranking system is in part due to:
* position/appointment/liason to the political leadership
* based on number of subordinates one can manage without going mad and still be healthy in mind to actually command the fight (for each level); micro managing is just not possible
* other administrative duties
It's unlikely to become leaner. It tends more to grow more the more complex technolgy introduce more options or way to wage war.

 

[Devin]

Having served in the Canadian Army as an NCO I have an opinion on this that has developed over many years. When I was young and still 'in' I would probably have agreed wholeheartedly with this article (we don't call officers 'whistle heads' for nothing...). As I've aged I've been able to see western military structure in a more wholistic manner and I've developed the opinion that a two tiered rank system still has a place. Could it be improved? Absolutely. The main reason a caste type system works is because the 'upper' caste (officers) need to be able to send the 'lower' caste into harms way often resulting in their deaths. This is less appropriate at the lower levels of officers because they have to accompany the troops into harms way but that is also part of their training. How I would change it is to require officers to spend the first year or two as a private as opposed to an officer cadet. The best officers always spent time as NCOs. This opinion is, of course, army centric but I will speak of the other services, Navy; The navy is probably the most dogmatic of the services, this is for them a strength because unlike the army and airforce you have hundreds if not thousands of people operating one weapons system, everyone has their place and the hierarchy has been developed over hundreds of years to operate efficiently. The airforce is probably the best candidate to get rid of the 'caste' system, I know in the RCAF there is much more mixing of ranks and a shocking amount (to an infantry guy) of first name basis between officers and NCOs.
My two bits.

 

[Seragina]

Right. The military is not a democracy.
Without the clear separation of rights (to refuse orders), responsibility (and oath) people would refuse to get into danger.

 

[johnpjones1775]

If an essay is arguing about 'conscripted masses' in its third paragraph, when those forces weren't conscripted, then you have to wonder how well formed its other arguments are....

…it’s talking all throughout our history, what do you think a draft is other than conscription?

 

[johnpjones1775]

Having served in the Canadian Army as an NCO I have an opinion on this that has developed over many years. When I was young and still 'in' I would probably have agreed wholeheartedly with this article (we don't call officers 'whistle heads' for nothing...). As I've aged I've been able to see western military structure in a more wholistic manner and I've developed the opinion that a two tiered rank system still has a place. Could it be improved? Absolutely. The main reason a caste type system works is because the 'upper' caste (officers) need to be able to send the 'lower' caste into harms way often resulting in their deaths. This is less appropriate at the lower levels of officers because they have to accompany the troops into harms way but that is also part of their training. How I would change it is to require officers to spend the first year or two as a private as opposed to an officer cadet. The best officers always spent time as NCOs. This opinion is, of course, army centric but I will speak of the other services, Navy; The navy is probably the most dogmatic of the services, this is for them a strength because unlike the army and airforce you have hundreds if not thousands of people operating one weapons system, everyone has their place and the hierarchy has been developed over hundreds of years to operate efficiently. The airforce is probably the best candidate to get rid of the 'caste' system, I know in the RCAF there is much more mixing of ranks and a shocking amount (to an infantry guy) of first name basis between officers and NCOs.
My two bits.

I agree on commissioned officers should spend time actually working with enlisted.

Maybe instead of pretending to be officers during summer cruises, midshipmen could be attached to various work centers, and work along side the enlisted no different than an E-1 or E-3 at best. They get all the basic quals for the PMS system, they actually get maintenance card, and so what maintenance they actually can in their own and assist with the more technical maintenance.

 

[tychosis]

Having served in the Canadian Army as an NCO I have an opinion on this that has developed over many years. When I was young and still 'in' I would probably have agreed wholeheartedly with this article (we don't call officers 'whistle heads' for nothing...). As I've aged I've been able to see western military structure in a more wholistic manner and I've developed the opinion that a two tiered rank system still has a place. Could it be improved? Absolutely. The main reason a caste type system works is because the 'upper' caste (officers) need to be able to send the 'lower' caste into harms way often resulting in their deaths. This is less appropriate at the lower levels of officers because they have to accompany the troops into harms way but that is also part of their training. How I would change it is to require officers to spend the first year or two as a private as opposed to an officer cadet. The best officers always spent time as NCOs. This opinion is, of course, army centric but I will speak of the other services, Navy; The navy is probably the most dogmatic of the services, this is for them a strength because unlike the army and airforce you have hundreds if not thousands of people operating one weapons system, everyone has their place and the hierarchy has been developed over hundreds of years to operate efficiently. The airforce is probably the best candidate to get rid of the 'caste' system, I know in the RCAF there is much more mixing of ranks and a shocking amount (to an infantry guy) of first name basis between officers and NCOs.
My two bits.

Yeah, your take sounds reasonable.

The fact is, enlisted personnel have very specific roles that they have focused training for. In general, *most* officers are meant to be working toward leadership roles where they need broader knowledge to make decisions. I don't see a problem with the current system as it exists.

(Now admittedly, I was on submarines where that officer-enlisted divide is far more blurry than you'd find elsewhere.)

Honestly, this was a hard read with all of the insipid semi-corporate pablum and I immediately assumed "this has to be an AF officer, probably in some graduate program." Sure enough, AF officer at the Naval Postgraduate School--this is generally the sort of mostly-useless semi-intellectual content they churn out.

"This clarion call underscored the need for the Department of Defense to embrace bold, transformative thinking in its approach to innovation."

^ (seriously, this sentence had me half-convinced this was some sort of joke. This is the kind of glurge you'd write if you were trying to *mock* these people.)

The article would have been well-served with less of... whatever that sentence is and more discussion of how he thinks this will work in practice.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Right. The military is not a democracy.
Without the clear separation of rights (to refuse orders), responsibility (and oath) people would refuse to get into danger.

What does democracy have to do with anything?
Did you even read the article?

 

[DWG]

…it’s talking all throughout our history, what do you think a draft is other than conscription?

Non-existent. The British Army was volunteer manned.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Non-existent. The British Army was volunteer manned.

It’s talking about the US…

But…ummm…hate to break it to you…

Conscription in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And let’s not get started on the royal navy and impressment.

 

[publiusr]

If you were 'pressed at sea, you had to be a sailor of at least *some* worth to begin with.

It isn't as if you had conscripted some rube in "Sailor's Haven" that didn't even know what an oar was...no need to go far inland to spot someone spry enough to climb an island's orchards. A mast is little different.

A "recruiting" tactic I might use to quell a mutany out of the box would to keep abreast of whatever island lost crops due to storms and go there--if not myself then an apparatchik--and lay a guilt trip about how they need to do right by their families. That's better than any whip.

Every so often you might see someone who really doesn't want to return--who also hears the sea a'callin'

You make him First Mate.

And people think Indefatigable's secret was Hornblower--Ha! HA!!


signed, Captain Morgan

 

[1635yankee]

"This clarion call underscored the need for the Department of Defense to embrace bold, transformative thinking in its approach to innovation."

^ (seriously, this sentence had me half-convinced this was some sort of joke. This is the kind of glurge you'd write if you were trying to *mock* these people.)

MBA thesis in buzzword science?

---------------------------

Seriously, the current military rank structure is derived from the 16th Century and even before, when there was an arms-bearing class (the people that were allowed to have coats of arms, i.e., the nobility), who were allowed to serve in the army as officers. France, during the ancien regime, is one example, where officers needed to have four generations of noble (arms-bearing) ancestors. England, and later Britain, were not that rigid, although the practice of being able to purchase commissions had something of the same effect. I guess it's possible to do something different, where everybody enlists, goes through basic training, becomes a private, and somewhere in the first few years of service elects to go on the managerial (officer) track vs the technical (NCO) track. I guess it's also possible to do something akin to what police forces do: one is promoted from sergeant to lieutenant, with nothing akin to a "commission."

I don't know if the hard division between "enlisted" (or "other ranks") and officers is necessary, but a) it's a very long-standing tradition, which largely works, and b) I don't think there are any current largish armed forces which don't have that sort of division.

------------------------------------------

 

[Kat Tsun]

I’d argue that any person above a certain level of intelligence is totally unsuitable to be enlisted, hence the need for more warrant officers for specialist tasks and sending brighter recruits directly to OCS. There is reason why OCS exists and was so successful in creating good junior leaders in WWII. I’d argue that it takes a core of career NCOs to make the modern military function, but a successful lifer NCO is a very different beast than a good officer. Perhaps there is a need to create junior commissioned officer ranks, such as those used on the Indian subcontinent. Or perhaps there should be an equivalent NCO rank to the French army “Adjutant?” However, despite utterances of equality, there is still a very real personal distinction between enlisting and going through the hard work of getting a Congressional appointment to a service academy. It’s not a matter of class but of personal effort.

It used to be so difficult to get into a service academy that boy and his family had to decide at the age or 12 or 13…. And then work towards that goal. Making yourself known to your Congressman, even as a teenager. These days I suspect that it amounts to some indifferent congressional staffer reading essays. Service academies probably aren’t as competitive as they once were.

Yeah, university degrees in USA used to be an accurate proxy for intelligence. It isn't anymore and hasn't been since at least Vietnam.

There needs to be a change in how OCS selects for candidates. Maybe just having prospective officers take the ASVAB and pushing all the Cat Is to OCS. The only way they'd become enlisted is if they resign their commission after their contract ends (3 years from start of AD in the Army at least) I guess. In that case, they'd eventually become warrant officers because they've decided they don't want to be leaders and just like working on stuff instead.

The pure enlisted pathway for Cat IIs and below would be MSG or something with a possibility for WO if they go to WOCS.

That's all you'd really need tbh. Incidentally this would solve the pilot shortage by allowing sergeants to fly aircraft since the selection method for officers and sergeants is the same now.

 

[tychosis]

I guess it's possible to do something different, where everybody enlists, goes through basic training, becomes a private, and somewhere in the first few years of service elects to go on the managerial (officer) track vs the technical (NCO) track. I guess it's also possible to do something akin to what police forces do: one is promoted from sergeant to lieutenant, with nothing akin to a "commission."

There are probably ways to pull it off that aren't entirely unreasonable. You've already put more thought into this than the author of the article did.

MBA thesis in buzzword science?

Yeah it honestly reads like a LinkedIn techbro post.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yes, and no. I think that enlisted and officer ranks are still needed, but with some serious changes.

On the enlisted side there should be a dual track. One track is for relatively low skill jobs, combat and non-combat. The other track is for skilled technicians and the like.

Think of that as a parallel to civilian life where there is the same dichotomy. Low skill jobs require only a limited amount of training and are mostly learned OJT. High skill jobs require extensive training and years of accumulated experience. The US military has tried to do some of this by giving extra pay and other benefits to the high skill jobs, but this is hit and miss, and it doesn't equate to high pay per se. Faster promotion is another way this has been tried to make a balance.

What is needed is a true double track system with separate rank systems (and pay and such) operating. Toss in a system of bonuses and such for retention and performance. Maybe some other perks as well.

On the officer side, the same sort of system needs full implementation. I would also say that the gulf between officer and senior enlisted, particularly on the technical side, needs to be far smaller than it is. One way that could be implemented is that the justice and command system be the same for all ranks, not the two-tier system it currently is.

This is particularly important when you have well-educated and intellectually equal enlisted to officers. The military does try in that respect but falls far short of the goal.

I served in the US Navy for 27 years, active and reserve, and I can say my own experience was one of enlisted being badly underappreciated, particularly people in skilled jobs requiring extensive technical knowledge. The Navy did a great disservice in not trying to fully cultivate that kind of enlisted person as a skilled tradesman. As I also did electrical (I was a 3384 nuclear power electrician) as a civilian to include contracting and industrial and commercial work, I can say I learned and was expected to do far more as a civilian than I ever was in the Navy. That does a great disservice to the Navy.

I'd also say that pay systems (this is US) like BAS, BAQ, (allowances for food and quarters) and the like need to disappear and become part of pay for everyone with the idea that all but the most entry level personnel get paid a wage where they can afford to rent an apartment or own a home in the civilian world with the ability to live there at least part of the time.

The whole concept should be towards building a trust between the service member and the service where the member wants to be there because they see it as a great job and opportunity as a career rather than just a job to do.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yeah, university degrees in USA used to be an accurate proxy for intelligence. It isn't anymore and hasn't been since at least Vietnam.

There needs to be a change in how OCS selects for candidates. Maybe just having prospective officers take the ASVAB and pushing all the Cat Is to OCS. The only way they'd become enlisted is if they resign their commission after their contract ends (3 years from start of AD in the Army at least) I guess. In that case, they'd eventually become warrant officers because they've decided they don't want to be leaders and just like working on stuff instead.

The pure enlisted pathway for Cat IIs and below would be MSG or something with a possibility for WO if they go to WOCS.

That's all you'd really need tbh. Incidentally this would solve the pilot shortage by allowing sergeants to fly aircraft since the selection method for officers and sergeants is the same now.

Been there seen that. I remember being the Afloat Training Group in San Diego. It's a mix of active duty and reservists about 50-50 with the enlisted being mostly E-6 and above. An ensign was telling a group of us Chiefs about how it was a shame that we didn't get the broadening of a college education. That was put to rest when a more senior officer asked a professor of engineering who taught at Cal Tech what he thought about that. Turned out most of the Chief's present had more degrees than the ensign.

Over the years, on the reserve side, I had E-5 and 6 in my unit / shop that included:

The program manager for Tomahawk missiles at Raytheon (total arrogant asshole too)
The Tomahawk program's lead mechanical engineer
An instrument tool and die maker for Raytheon
The lead machinist for instruments at Kitt Peak National Observatory
Several engineers, mechanical or electrical

These guys were very good at what they did and could go far beyond what the Navy expected of them. It was a misuse of manpower on the Navy's part.

My college background was industrial engineering, computer programming (I figured I needed to know the "enemy"), and operations management.

The Navy wasn't going to make us officers, but the smart officers knew they had a keeper when one of us showed up.

 

[DWG]

It’s talking about the US…

But…ummm…hate to break it to you…

Conscription in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Hate to break it to you, but that's a century later than the article was discussing (yes, I could have specified the time period, but I thought it was obvious from context). If he can't be bothered to ensure his basic historical facts are correct, then how can you trust anything he develops from them?

And given his background, it's shocking he didn't check his facts.

 

[johnpjones1775]

If you were 'pressed at sea, you had to be a sailor of at least *some* worth to begin with.

It isn't as if you had conscripted some rube in "Sailor's Haven" that didn't even know what an oar was...no need to go far inland to spot someone spry enough to climb an island's orchards. A mast is little different.

A "recruiting" tactic I might use to quell a mutany out of the box would to keep abreast of whatever island lost crops due to storms and go there--if not myself then an apparatchik--and lay a guilt trip about how they need to do right by their families. That's better than any whip.

Every so often you might see someone who really doesn't want to return--who also hears the sea a'callin'

You make him First Mate.

And people think Indefatigable's secret was Hornblower--Ha! HA!!


signed, Captain Morgan

Hate to break it to you, but that's a century later than the article was discussing (yes, I could have specified the time period, but I thought it was obvious from context). If he can't be bothered to ensure his basic historical facts are correct, then how can you trust anything he develops from them?

And given his background, it's shocking he didn't check his facts.

Bro, he’s talking about all services not just the army.
Do you lack reading comprehension?
Hell the officer who wrote this wasn’t even an army officer.

 

[TinWing]

Yeah, university degrees in USA used to be an accurate proxy for intelligence. It isn't anymore and hasn't been since at least Vietnam.

There needs to be a change in how OCS selects for candidates. Maybe just having prospective officers take the ASVAB and pushing all the Cat Is to OCS. The only way they'd become enlisted is if they resign their commission after their contract ends (3 years from start of AD in the Army at least) I guess. In that case, they'd eventually become warrant officers because they've decided they don't want to be leaders and just like working on stuff instead.

The pure enlisted pathway for Cat IIs and below would be MSG or something with a possibility for WO if they go to WOCS.

That's all you'd really need tbh. Incidentally this would solve the pilot shortage by allowing sergeants to fly aircraft since the selection method for officers and sergeants is the same now.

I agree with every word of what you wrote. Spot on. Personally, I think the ASVAB is an incredibly accurate aptitude test and that everyone should take it even if they don’t intend on serving.

 

[Arjen]

Bro, he’s talking about all services not just the army.
Do you lack reading comprehension?
Hell the officer who wrote this wasn’t even an army officer.

The third paragraph @DWG alluded to:

The officer-enlisted divide that characterizes America’s rank system has historical roots in the most successful military forces of the eighteenth century: the British military under King George III, the French military of King Louis XVI, and the Prussian military of King Frederick II. Their dual-track, class-based rank systems were modeled after the societies from which they drew their manpower, with aristocrats and landed gentry commanding large numbers of conscripted peasants and urban laborers, employed in large formations on an open field of battle or the high seas. So distrusted was the general population from which the conscripted masses were drawn that Sir Arthur Wellesley blatantly expressed his sentiment in 1813: “We have in service the scum of the earth as common soldiers.” Officers were gentlemen for whom a commission was a marker of prestige, while conscripts were often impressed from the streets and were generally expected to flee at the first sign of battle if not under the harshest possible discipline enforced by members of a higher caste. Enlisted conscripts with a university education were virtually unheard of, and the primary requirement to succeed in the enlisted ranks was the ability to march in step and the mechanical memorization and drill required to load and fire a musket. While the lessons of eighteenth-century conflict can be extraordinarily informative at the strategic level, the tactical realities of twenty-first-century warfare bear little resemblance to the line formations and marching in step of Saratoga or Waterloo. And yet, the United States is still employing a rank system inherited from the monarchies of the premodern Europe.

Arthur, Duke of Wellington, Wellesley. Army General in the Napoleonic era, allegedly talking about conscripts in the British Army.

Do you lack reading comprehension?

Tone down. Please.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The third paragraph @DWG alluded to:

Arthur, Duke of Wellington, Wellesley. Army General in the Napoleonic era, allegedly talking about conscripts in the British Army.

Tone down. Please.

Author says ‘militaries’ that refers to all branches a nation’s armed forces. Including army and navy.

The ‘scum’ quote wasn’t claiming they were conscripts it was used to highlight the class differences.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Warfare is evolving. The current system of rank, promotion, and even discipline, are based on Industrial Age mass warfare. In this period of history (roughly from 1600 to 2000--there is some overlap, so those dates are approximate) militaries worked much like factories. You had a large mass of 'workers' performing some particular job by rote, the smartest workers eventually being made foremen whose job it was to make sure the workers stayed steadily at work, and a small number of educated, monied, managers who were the decision makers directing everything.

Today we're well into the electronics age, and warfare has shifted to using electronics and technology to substitute for workers doing things by rote. There is a quickly diminishing need for such workers and they have little or no value today. Instead, what is needed is a highly trained and skilled workforce of master tradesmen, technicians, and other craftsmen that perform a variety of more complex tasks that can't be learned by rote or done by a computer. The previous educated, monied, managers still exist but there is a vanishing gap between them and the workforce in terms of knowledge, education, and ability. They need to become more partners in an organization that is no longer a top down linear one.

 

[Arjen]

Author says ‘militaries’ that refers to all branches a nation’s armed forces. Including army and navy.

The author writes Wellesley commented on the character of soldiers in the volunteer British Army of his day, in reasoning that ties in with conscripts in Britain, Prussia and France. Which makes me question the author's rigour.

conscripts were often impressed from the streets and were generally expected to flee at the first sign of battle if not under the harshest possible discipline enforced by members of a higher caste

Fleeing the scene of the battle is problematic if the sea is the scene of the battle. Wellesley/Wellington would have known. Press gangs were a Royal Navy thing.
<some heavy editing>

 

[tychosis]

There is a quickly diminishing need for such workers and they have little or no value today. Instead, what is needed is a highly trained and skilled workforce of master tradesmen, technicians, and other craftsmen that perform a variety of more complex tasks that can't be learned by rote or done by a computer.

I'll be honest, I'm always amused when senior naval leadership pulls out drivel like "the modern sailor grew up in a digital world and is uniquely poised to employ and maintain modern systems blah blah blah."

I work on these modern systems and I work with modern sailors, and that's a load of bunk. The most complex problem-solving measures the average enlistee knows today is turn it off and turn it back on again. (And this isn't necessarily their fault, systems have to be designed so the average enlistee can operate them, and the Navy does a pretty abysmal job of technical training--and furthermore this isn't really the Navy's fault save for the fact they're demanding new functionality they aren't capable of providing adequate training for.)

I genuinely wish we could reduce manning and get better people--but frankly it's really really hard to tell just from a test battery who is going to succeed and who isn't. I've seen potential golden boys who turned out to be useless and I've seen man dark horses ascend to rockstars.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I'll be honest, I'm always amused when senior naval leadership pulls out drivel like "the modern sailor grew up in a digital world and is uniquely poised to employ and maintain modern systems blah blah blah."

I work on these modern systems and I work with modern sailors, and that's a load of bunk. The most complex problem-solving measures the average enlistee knows today is turn it off and turn it back on again. (And this isn't necessarily their fault, systems have to be designed so the average enlistee can operate them, and the Navy does a pretty abysmal job of technical training--and furthermore this isn't really the Navy's fault save for the fact they're demanding new functionality they aren't capable of providing adequate training for.)

I genuinely wish we could reduce manning and get better people--but frankly it's really really hard to tell just from a test battery who is going to succeed and who isn't. I've seen potential golden boys who turned out to be useless and I've seen man dark horses ascend to rockstars.

What sailors are you hanging around?

I had to troubleshoot my mk38s twice in a single deployment, and could have made one of the repairs if the rules allowed.(each gun went down separately)

Edit
Technically I probably could have done the other repair if I had the replacement cable, but man I really wouldn’t have wanted to.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The author writes Wellesley commented on the character of soldiers in the volunteer British Army of his day, in reasoning that ties in with conscripts in Britain, Prussia and France. Which makes me question the author's rigour.

Fleeing the scene of the battle is problematic if the sea is the scene of the battle. Wellesley/Wellington would have known. Press gangs were a Royal Navy thing.
<some heavy editing>

Ok, so your whole argument is a strawman…got it.

 

[Arjen]

strawman…

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Get a grip.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Get a grip.

You’re trying to break down the author’s argument by attacking if he knows British history well enough over a pretty minor point, rather than engaging with any of the author’s actual points.

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/

You’re using the British army conscripts talking point to dilute the actual point of the article.

 

[Arjen]

Actually DWG raised the point first. I agree with DWG that if you flub one easily checked fact, your credibility suffers. Bro.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Actually DWG raised the point first. I agree with DWG that if you flub one easily checked fact, your credibility suffers. Bro.

Ok. Bro.

Still a strawman.

Attack the actual substance of the article not some pointless sideshow tangent if you disagree.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I'll be honest, I'm always amused when senior naval leadership pulls out drivel like "the modern sailor grew up in a digital world and is uniquely poised to employ and maintain modern systems blah blah blah."

I work on these modern systems and I work with modern sailors, and that's a load of bunk. The most complex problem-solving measures the average enlistee knows today is turn it off and turn it back on again. (And this isn't necessarily their fault, systems have to be designed so the average enlistee can operate them, and the Navy does a pretty abysmal job of technical training--and furthermore this isn't really the Navy's fault save for the fact they're demanding new functionality they aren't capable of providing adequate training for.)

I genuinely wish we could reduce manning and get better people--but frankly it's really really hard to tell just from a test battery who is going to succeed and who isn't. I've seen potential golden boys who turned out to be useless and I've seen man dark horses ascend to rockstars.

I'd agree. Before retiring, I pretty regularly got sent here and there to solve electrical issues some command was having. From the baseball field covered with a hundred + generators in Bahrain that were 220 - 440V 50 cycle the Navy / Marines were getting rid of because they were the "wrong voltage and frequency"--a simple task to convert them to 120-240V or 277-480V 60 Hz--where I had to go and show the base electricians how to do that, along with load testing and such...

To going to a frigate in Continental Marine's yard under the Coronado bridge in San Diego right after 9/11 (the Navy wanted it moved because of a potential threat from someone dropping something from that bridge on it) that had serious electrical issues that were actually easily sorted out if you knew what you were doing...

...etc.

It isn't so much the testing that's at fault, it's the expectations. The military sets low expectations of enlisted. Those that take the initiative to become experts and advance in rank exist, but they do so despite the military, not because of it. The gulf between officer and enlisted, even between senior enlisted and junior, almost ensures that is going to be the case. For the officer, it's all about management, not leadership despite what anyone says. They are worried about the paperwork being correct and that their budget is managed.
The senior enlisted are pressed into that and at the same time are only concerned that the junior enlisted are qualified on paper to do whatever it is they do.
Maintenance is an afterthought. If it works that's great! If it's broken we'll contract for a technician to fix it. The view is the crew are just operators of the equipment and outside the most basic, routine, checks they don't need much if any training. If it breaks somebody will show up to fix it.
Better people can be made, but the process isn't cheap or quick. That's the problem with the military's training, they want cheap and quick.

Like I've long said on that subject:

You can have it

Fast
Cheap
Right

Pick two.

 

[DWG]

You’re using the British army conscripts talking point to dilute the actual point of the article.

There were no British army conscripts in the period he was referencing. His whole argument is based on something that didn't exist. If he can't think rigorously enough to check his basic facts, then why would anyone listen to any other point he makes?

"Captain Mike Cartier is a chief of staff of the Air Force PhD fellow at the Naval Postgraduate School, where he researches military innovation and great power competition. Most recently, he led strategic and operational analysis teams at US Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa, enabling security assistance to Ukraine, NATO deterrence operations, and crisis response efforts across three combatant commands."

God help us.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I'd agree. Before retiring, I pretty regularly got sent here and there to solve electrical issues some command was having. From the baseball field covered with a hundred + generators in Bahrain that were 220 - 440V 50 cycle the Navy / Marines were getting rid of because they were the "wrong voltage and frequency"--a simple task to convert them to 120-240V or 277-480V 60 Hz--where I had to go and show the base electricians how to do that, along with load testing and such...

To going to a frigate in Continental Marine's yard under the Coronado bridge in San Diego right after 9/11 (the Navy wanted it moved because of a potential threat from someone dropping something from that bridge on it) that had serious electrical issues that were actually easily sorted out if you knew what you were doing...

...etc.

It isn't so much the testing that's at fault, it's the expectations. The military sets low expectations of enlisted. Those that take the initiative to become experts and advance in rank exist, but they do so despite the military, not because of it. The gulf between officer and enlisted, even between senior enlisted and junior, almost ensures that is going to be the case. For the officer, it's all about management, not leadership despite what anyone says. They are worried about the paperwork being correct and that their budget is managed.
The senior enlisted are pressed into that and at the same time are only concerned that the junior enlisted are qualified on paper to do whatever it is they do.
Maintenance is an afterthought. If it works that's great! If it's broken we'll contract for a technician to fix it. The view is the crew are just operators of the equipment and outside the most basic, routine, checks they don't need much if any training. If it breaks somebody will show up to fix it.
Better people can be made, but the process isn't cheap or quick. That's the problem with the military's training, they want cheap and quick.

Like I've long said on that subject:

You can have it

Fast
Cheap
Right

Pick two.

Just because you were sent to do the work doesn’t mean they weren’t able to.

One of the aforementioned issues with my guns was the video card went out. I could have replaced it no problem, but some rule/policy/law said that I couldn’t, that repair had to be done by a tech rep.

 

[tychosis]

Those that take the initiative to become experts and advance in rank exist, but they do so despite the military, not because of it.

Yeah, I mentioned that you can never tell who is going to be a rockstar and who is going to be a @##%bag, but motivation and intellectual honesty is the key. The ones who become great technicians are the ones who can realistically assess the things they know and don't know and work earnestly on the latter.

There are far more technicians/operators who believe they truly understand things they don't understand, and they're quite frankly dangerous. I'd honestly rather have you do nothing than have to fix something you've broken. (A lot of the time that bad gouge comes from Joe Schmuckatelli across the pier who tells them "oh yeah that's how you fix this" and then things are worse than they were before.)

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What sailors are you hanging around?

I had to troubleshoot my mk38s twice in a single deployment, and could have made one of the repairs if the rules allowed.(each gun went down separately)

Edit
Technically I probably could have done the other repair if I had the replacement cable, but man I really wouldn’t have wanted to.

In the US Navy, that was a result of WW 2, Korea, and Vietnam, with long and frequent deployments. There were tenders. Ships had shops with most or all of the gear to fix their equipment. The crew was on their own to get it done and keep things up.
That has changed since about the late 80's with a shift towards reducing manning, eliminating parts and tooling onboard ships, and a focus on watchstanding / operations rather than maintenance. Many maintenance heavy ratings in the Navy have been eliminated or reduced severely in number.
All of that was a result of trying to eliminate costs in budgets. The top leadership was looking, like some corporate board, at the bottom line and where money was being allocated. Maintenance was shifted towards hiring civilian contractors on an as needed basis to keep things working.
The problem with that was, and is, when at sea a ship had something break there was now no immediate means to fix it in many cases.

Oh, I was the kind of Chief that would have said, Let's make that cable! and then shown the shop how to do it and where to get the parts from.