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

When we boot career service members, we lose a lot of institutional knowledge and experience. Then, we waste time, money, and effort re-training someone else to the same level of proficiency. In a combat environment, we don't necessarily have the luxury of constantly having a unit full of troops learning skill-level-one proficiencies. On active duty, I probably would have disagreed, and said we should get rid of all the non "super high speed Soldiers". But after a decade in the civilian sector, I have seen that a diverse set of skills, experience, and personalities is an asset to your organization, not a liability. Of course there are limitations on how much performance must be tied to retention and military readiness, but the constant "up or out" system might be worth reevaluating. The Army, at least, is large enough to have some room for a couple highly experienced personnel (perhaps a handful as part of battalion staff) that can stay on as SMEs for a particular system or essential task, serving in the "extended grades" of Specialist ranks. Standardized testing for that position would make it competitive (an alternative to leadership positions - some folks are competitive in other ways), prove their superior knowledge base, and justify the E-grade pay/promotion they're getting paid. That way it is concurrently not made a "dumping ground" where slackers could hide out, but we aren't forced to lose a good troop. To naysayers, I agree: I don't think there should be a "Specialist 9" (or even SPC 8). But on the other hand, we all know of NCO's that were promoted because of their knowledge, and not because of their leadership potential. Those stripes didn't mean anything either.

Think this would apply to those who want to just serve a term of duty and then return to civilian life. Don 't necessarily want to lead, but just do a great job for the time they are in service.

I am of the opinion that because a Specialist 4 is an exceptional work in his field it does not make him an exceptional candidate to move up the ranks as an NCO. So what does the Army do, they let him go because 1. He has no desire to leave his job, 2. because he doesn't pass the boards for Sgt. and doesn't know what a Sgt. does. The Army then loses someone who knows his job inside out and can do it practically in his or her sleep. Bring back the Specialist rates and the Army gets to keep these experts.

Usually, in order for a person to become an NCO, there has to be a 'slot' which calls for some kind of supervisory responsibility. You can't have a platoon or squad that consists of all NCOs. As it is currently, you have a squad consisting of SP4s or PFCs with a Sgt. E-5 or E-6 as a squad leader. You could have some SP4s who are really sharp, but can't find an NCO slot to get promoted because of the next paygrade being an NCO. It would be hard to convince a SP4 to re-up as an E-4. If the Army brought back the specialists ranks, it would have an easier time keeping some really sharp people.

I take exception to this comment. As a medic (clinical specialist - 91C), rank structure moved from Sp6 to SFC. It had nothing to do with inability to lead. MAJ.

Among my five MOS classifications in service and combat support fields, I started out as a musician in the mid 70's so I saw specialists up through SP7 at that time. As a musician in a field band you might advance up to a section leader of maybe 6 people or a group leader of 15 or so. The supervisory requirements were mostly insuring that for performances of less than the entire band, especially two at the same time, enough people from each instrument or section were on that gig. Leadership in a more traditional sense was not part of the job. Mentorship was more dependent on skill level than rank or position. I've seen junior ranking people who were graduates of the best music schools like Eastman or Julliard. This is one of the best justifications for specialist or technical ranks.

I've served as a SP5 and a SGT, both E5 pay grade, and can tell you that many times there was a world of difference in the respect and credibility given to each outside of their units. "Chicken" ranks (so called because of the eagle in the middle of the insignia) were frequently all treated as if they were just glorified SP4's. Hard stripes were treated as NCO's.

I understand the logistics and complications of having multiple ranks corresponding to each pay grade. It was a major pain being transferred out of a lateral promotion as a SGT to an new unit as a SP5 and having to change over stripes on class A, B (khakis) and blues uniforms. However, I can definitely see good reason for separating out the rank structure.

No. Beyond the whole change in force structure who create a two tier cast system.

In my 35 years (now retired) I have seen way to many Sergeants that were not leaders but they could answer the questions on the board right, they could score high on APFT, they could go to college (during work hours) But they didn't know anything about their MOS or how to lead Soldiers. Then again I have seen alot of PFC and Spc. that were great at their and those above them job's. These same lower enlisted Soldiers were hard workers and showed a great amount of respect to everyone. they could even take command if the situation warranted it, but they weren't an everyday leader. Bottom line is, Rank doesn't make you a leader nor does it make you a subject matter expert. The Army rank system is set up to entice a Soldier to want to advance in the ranks, you should want to strive to advance in your field and you should try to be the one that when the SHTF you are the go to Soldier.

Back in the day (when I came in the Army) there was still such a thing as Spc 4-9 these were non-NCO positions usually for Cooks, Supply, Personnel, it seemed to work pretty good from what I remember

Not many sailors or marines responding I see, that whole mentality of an E4 in leadership over an E6 specialist is just weird. In the Navy everyone is a sailor first and has assigned battle stations and knows firefighting and damage control. They know how to "fight the ship", first and foremost, then they work their specialty. They move up based on leadership skills and technical skills. Same with the Marines, a rifleman first and foremost then the specialty.