In today's modern military, would there be any benefit to an enlisted structure similar to that of the past?

I would like to know where rallypoint pulled this picture from as it is from the 2012 AL best warrior competition with no bearing on the topic what so ever?

There are also those who are happy where they are and a promotion forces them to do something else. I was happy as an E-6 out in the boonies. E-7 put me in a job I hated E-8 never went outside. In 67 we had all of the above, you needed a decoder ring to tell who was who. We had Specialists up to E-7, We had the regular rank structure and the obsolete rank structure with SSG E-5, SFC E-6, MSG E-7. They were leftovers from obsolete systems who needed to retrain to advance. Firing Batteries were simple but Headquarters was insane.
Up or out can destroy the careers of some good soldiers.

In Ft. Polk in 74, I remember a cook that was a SPC7.

As a Marine who later served in the Army the problem I see which makes this question keep coming up is the leadership culture in the Army. In the Marines we're taught leadership early on. Example if you have two Marine private one will always be senior to the other and even placed in charge of the other even if it comes down to who signed the enlistment papers first. Promotion to Corporal is not guaranteed like specialist is in the Army. Our promotion system into the NCO ranks is a better approach than the Army's system. Our system takes into account proficiency in mos,conduct rating, pt score and rifle score,education and awards. The Army system doesn't score for mos proficiency or conduct rating.

In today's "real world" coporate environment, we have a need for both Leaders/Managers and technological specialists. Why does my electrical engineer who lives in the lab need to know how to manage or lead individuals?

The unified rank progression that did away with the Specialist ranks hurt the army more than it helped it. You have Warrant Officers as specialists in the officer ranks; doesn't it make sense to have the same in the enlisted ranks?

We need to bring back Corporal-Captain. Worked well in the Korean War. Time to bring it back.

Great-Uncle was a Tech Sgt on an Army Tugboat in WWII( the army had more ships than the Navy)
I loved being a Spec/5- I was a medic and so wasn't in the chain of command anywhere.
1 Oct 1985 was the day that I stopped being special !

Bringing back any kind of technical grades would be problematic for the reasons stated above. But, depending on the MOS, Rate/NEC, or AFSC involved, I could see much more use of proficiency pay.

What is the point. If you are good at your job and not fit to lead, then stay good where you are at. For some, being a good leader takes time, effort and training. If you are good at your job and put in the hard work to become a good leader then, move up through the ranks. Let's not forget that we are supposed to be able to lead from any level and position because that is what could happen at any time on the battlefield. It is what happens now throughout our ranks.

Shortly after I came in, the Army got rid of the SP6 and SP5 ranks. My first team was led by a SSG and have 5 SP5s on it. I was the only private. It was like belonging to a family with 5 older brothers, which isn't always a good thing. Then came the day they all came into work and were now wearing SGT rank, with me being the only private. I can say that out of the 5 none of them had the desire to be a SGT or they already would have been. How good of an NCO do you think they were?

Instead of bringing back those ranks how about just letting someone stay a SPC if they want to instead of kicking them out? As others have already said, not everyone wants to be a leader, or is capable of being one. That doesn't mean they can't be valuable to the Army or even a good mentor to younger soldiers. You don't have to be an NCO to be a mentor. Hell, I've had soldiers who didn't join until there were up there in age. Do you think they weren't good mentors just because they weren't an NCO?