Battlefield Promotions are back for the Army...

[63Bravo]

...albeit it on a trial basis for now.

Military.com Story in full... (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,166409,00.html)

So, what do you think of this Grunts members?

Personally, I think it is a great idea, and implemented in the way it is now, could be a good tool for keeping some of our junior enlisted members for longer terms. There are limitations as to how the promotions are given, as well as requisites that need to be met afterward, so this is not just something that commanders can use at every chance.

[SGM]

There are a select few this will be good for. In a combat unit, down at the team leader level, most I know have no problems following an E4(Corporal) who is thrust into a SGT position. They (the team) know what the leadership roll means and does.

Where this will help is when that not so often E4 on the team gets pissed because he didn't get the Team Leader position and now has to follow a TL of the same rank.

While deployed there are times when you need that person to have the rank now to complete the mission. Like I said - I believe it is only a select few.

I fully agree that the SSG should have to attend the Leadership courses because at this level there are things they need to know and should know in order to fully take care of their Squad.

[Woody]

Well your only one bullet away from your next promotion (well a large artillery strike in my case :)) So its good for those who have to step up and do the job to get the rank that goes with it.

[63Bravo]

There are a select few this will be good for. In a combat unit, down at the team leader level, most I know have no problems following an E4(Corporal) who is thrust into a SGT position. They (the team) know what the leadership roll means and does.

Where this will help is when that not so often E4 on the team gets pissed because he didn't get the Team Leader position and now has to follow a TL of the same rank.

While deployed there are times when you need that person to have the rank now to complete the mission. Like I said - I believe it is only a select few.

I fully agree that the SSG should have to attend the Leadership courses because at this level there are things they need to know and should know in order to fully take care of their Squad.

I agree for the most part...mainly because I was at one time one of those E-4 Spc that had to pull the weight of an E-5 who was not trained enough to do the job. That later got even worse when I was promoted to Sgt and had an SSG who retired and ultimately left me in charge of my Motor Pool and its operation, a job I had to do for close to 2 years while my unit was deployed with out me. I now have that same E-5 back, and is now my SSG, and i am still just an Sgt, and I am continually doing his work load while also trying to maintain my own as well as train the other two E-5`s and the other troops in our platoon...it gets old after a while.

As far as making the SSG`s attend WLC, I would be happy if they also made them attend BNCOC as well. I have been to both WLC and all 4 phases of 63B BNCOC, while my SSG has not attended an NCO school in my entire 14 years of service, and can only claim PLDC many years prior, late 80`s if memory serves me. I love him to death and he is like a Platoon Daddy to me, but he is woefully under qualified to be in the position he is in.

[BronzeGoat]

Sounds good for the most part. I don't think this should be used just to recognize a guy who is in a leadership position just by virtue of no one else being available. That same guy should fulfill the prerequisites they listed, i.e. sustained excellent leadership and service. And I wouldn't mind one bit if they brought back the previous NCOES set-up whereby a soldier could not normally make SGT unless they had PLDC first, BNCOC for SSG, and ANCOC for SFC. However, I know that couldn't happen until the Army-wide OPTEMPO slows down.

[JmpMarine]

This is nothing new in the Marine Corps. Only it's labeled as 'Combat Meritorious Promotion' and it goes through E7 (Gunnery Sergeant).

[SGM]

I feel for ya 63B - ya step up to the plate and then get dusted.

Until its changed, I feel the Army maded its biggest mistake by taking out the SPC5 -8 ranks. Not everyone in the Army is a leader, nor will everyone be leadership material. That's what the hard stripes are for - leaders. I worked with and deployed with so many in leadership positions who shouldn't have been there. Was a scary time. I remember as a newly promoted SFC I had to step up to the plate, over 2 other SFCs who both had over a year's TIG to assume the position of an MSG who couldn't cut it. He was taken in because (by the CDR's own words) "he was a nice guy and needed the time for retirement". BS. Don't ever put soldiers in that position. Soldiers deserve better. Now I'm off my soap box.

[PhoenixCadet]

Until its changed, I feel the Army maded its biggest mistake by taking out the SPC5 -8 ranks.

SGM (or anyone else),

Would you happen to know why the Army got rid of all the SPC ranks, except for the current SPC4 / SPC rank? In doing searches, unless I missed something - I can only find info on the history of the actual ranks, such as dates of creation and when they were removed. I haven't been able to find an answer to this specific question - and it seems odd (at least to me) that the Army would get rid of all except for one.

-PC

[PhilK]

Until its changed, I feel the Army maded its biggest mistake by taking out the SPC5 -8 ranks.

I TOTALLY agree with you SGM. Also, don't get me started on the "up or out" policies.

[BronzeGoat]

SGM (or anyone else),

Would you happen to know why the Army got rid of all the SPC ranks, except for the current SPC4 / SPC rank? In doing searches, unless I missed something - I can only find info on the history of the actual ranks, such as dates of creation and when they were removed. I haven't been able to find an answer to this specific question - and it seems odd (at least to me) that the Army would get rid of all except for one.

-PC

I imagine it might have had something to do with the idea of having a young corporal or buck sergeant possibly in charge of a SP5 or SP6 with vastly more experience. That doesn't seem like a good argument in light of the fact that 2LTs, 1LTs, and CPTs are put in this position all the time. Hell, it takes an average soldier about what, 12 years to make E-7? Depending on MOS of course, some might be 7 years while some might not make it after 20. It takes a 2LT two years to make 1LT, and a total of 3.5 to 4 years time-in-service to make CPT. So it would seem to be much the same situation.

Anyway, I think having SP4 through SP7 would be ideal. E-7 is about what most soldiers can expect to make if they stay in for 20 years and are reasonably good soldiers. I'm not so sure SP8 or SP9 would be a good idea, but SP7 seems okay. It would probably end up being a combination of personal choice and counsellings since SPCs don't get an NCOER. I've known a few guys who would be perfect as a senior specialist as opposed to a SSG or SFC. Of course, I've also seen guys who would make good career corporals....