Should the Army bring back the Specialist titles?

Honestly I am not entirely sure why we have the current SPC rank, much less the legacy ones. Why not just have Corporals and be done with it? Do we really need two tiers of enlisted personnel?

Yes sir, they should be brought back. I knew many technical skilled soldiers who weren't leadership material. However, they weren't worth losing either. I knew many Spec5, Spec6, and Spec7's. They loved it. Could concentrate and focus on their MOS and the specialty skills they needed to maintain. When they were hard striped, several didn't transition over so well. It was very hard on them to make the change over to becoming an NCO. Quite a few retired earlier than they'd planned to do so initially.

So, yes, I'd recommend the Soecialists ranks return. Great question.

100% yes, it should be brought back. Additionally, the rank of Corporal should become the norm and not the exception - and given the full authority and respect as a NCO rank. No more SPC(P). You go to the Promotion Board for SGT, you pass the Board, you are laterally promoted to Corporal on the spot. Either that or completely do aeay with the rank of Corporal, for in the half assed way it is currently used, it is seen (and for the most part treated) as a bad joke.

as a E-5 SGT i know my limits as a leader, but as a wheeled mechanic i'm tip top (or so i've been told) being a SPC 5 i could do my job and teach others to do the same without the mind boggling hassle of the leadership paperwork. as a leader if i were to lose a soldier in a hostile situation i would absolutely lose my mind, knowing that that person died and i was to blame. it's bad enough to lose a battle buddy, but to know it was your subordinate, someone who you were directly in charge of and you FAIL them. i just don't think i have what it takes. lose and engine, ok, break a tranny, fine, screw up another soldier's life, i wouldn't be able to look myself in the face let alone anyone else. some people are natural born leader, others like myself and a few other i know just let us work to make the leader look better

No...the Army needs to develop leaders, not 'specialists'.

If you do not want to be a leader, there are many other options OUTSIDE of the active military where your skills would be useful.

Back in WWII you had Sergeants and Tech Sergeants for much the same reason. But the Tech Sergeants while being junior to the Sergeants of the same grade got paid extra for that technical expertise.

Just as re-enlistment bonuses for highly technical specialist fields were higher thank for hard stripes.
Give it a couple more decades and the technical/specialist ranks will be back under a new name and with new insignia.

Seems like a great idea

Absolutely! I have been saying this for years, especially after having been saddled with an E-6 that is about as useful as a poop-flavored Popsicle and more concerned about when chow and rack time are than some of my Joes. It disgusts me when guys like that who are a drain on the institution take up slots that more qualified and deserving guys should be getting promoted into. Bring back the SPC 5 & 6 and make these undeserving NonComs riflemen, supply clerks, cooks and truck drivers, and make room for the real leaders to advance.

I joined about the same time as the demise of SP7, then SP6 & SP5. I thought it was great because if people are going to be paid at those grades they should be able to lead as well as do their job. I was young and naive. Within 10 years I realized that many SSGs I knew would have been great SP6s because they were horrible leaders. The best way to understand the whole idea of the specialist line is like in the civilian world we have many workers but only a few leaders. The Army expects all NCO workers to be leaders, but it just isn't so. The specialist line is a realistic way to address leadership vs technical skill in the largest service of our nation's military.

Interesting conversation. An aspect that I have not seen discussed here is what happens to the SP6 when he/she goes to compete against SSGs for the rank of SFC? Would you, in fact, be limiting those extremely capable Soldiers by having them compete for promotion to a senior NCO position versus those who have leadership experience?

I served as a Specialist 4 before the Army converted the rank to Specialist and remember the day that Soldiers serving in the ranks of SP5 and SP6 were converted to the NCO ranks of SGT and SSG. The change was a significant one in that many found they were now directly responsible for the Soldiers since most were more senior. Some performed great ... and it took others a while to adjust their mindsets-if they ever did. The point is, that a majority of those who were outstanding before the change were, or became, outstanding after the change.

I also find it interesting that so many people refer to Soldiers as their pay grades, i.e. E4, E5, E6, versus their Army ranks: SPC, SGT, SSG, etc. To be quite blunt, it is very insulting to refer to a Soldier based on what the Soldier is paid. The same would be true for any who refer to officers as their O-grades: O3, O4, instead of CPT or MAJ. Just a thought.

Great conversation.