Should the Army bring back the Specialist titles?

It will happen. There is a demand for highly technically competent technicians that the current system of move up (to be a non-technician NCO) or get out cannot support. Just in the cyber field alone we need Soldiers with YEARS of experience that they will never get as NCOs. For the same reason they created Warrant Officers they will bring back some sort of Specialist Rank structure.

Yes, many Army Fields are technical fields. The SP5 SP6 and SP7 in those fields were the subject mater experts. Example: a SP6 Intell Repairman that could determine what any malfunction in the equipment was, repair the problem, and explain the problem to other maintenance people. That individual was not a leader. Promoting him to SFC was a disaster!!!!!!!! The Air Force gives its technical field people the choice of staying in the technical area or becoming a people manager. (SP4, SP5. SGT, SP6, WO1 & CW2)

There are a given number of junior enlisted billets, and keeping those billets filled as E4s become NCOs mean we have to pay for the accession of new recruits. So, if you took a given billet that was filled with only two E2-E4s in a 10 year period, versus four as newly-arrived E2-E4s, the cost savings alone of not having to bring as many Soldiers onto active duty would be tremendous. Additionally, you would have more Soldiers in operational units at any given time instead of a much bigger population of new enlistees in a training status. This is even before you look at the expertise, pay, authority, etc. topics involved with reinstating the specialist ranks.

I would fully support the return of the Specialist Ranks. I don't believe that everyone can lead, and even with training, not everyone will be a successful leader. There is a place for specialists, and they should be able to progress. Just my thought, I could be wrong.

I have talked to several soldiers who were around when these ranks were active. Just like this forum the results are mixed. For the most part it was deleted due to the Army's needs at the time. It is a way to keep quality soldiers yes but it is not a hard stripe rank which does cause issues. it was meant to be just for the support side but did move to the combat arms side as well. When you have current day spc e-4 "shamming" out of details and work then you would just be paying them more to shame out. While the rank structure IS a leadership among the spc ranks it would still be out ranked by a sgt e-5. With that said if you bring these ranks back the think about what you are asking your joe's to do. (sgt e-5 out ranks a spc e-7) In my opinion I would not bring them back

Not relevant....All of the branches need to concentrate on Quality vs. Quantity...the old way of doing business needs to change.

Two thumbs up. In the United States Navy we have specific ratings and as you move up the ladder. The leadership and technical knowledge are hand in hand requirements. You are tested all the way up the ladder to E'7, from that point up your personal levels of leadership and technical knowledge are 1st and foremost. Your journey from E-7 and above are to not only too continue to climb higher in knowledge and experience with leadership. Your required to mentor from the beginning of the climb up E-4 to E-9 ,so those subordinates in your charge are able to carry on the tradition. So my answer is a resounding yes, if it's in the best interests of young men/women who have so proudly served.

Absolutely. The lack of this is basically what pushed me out of the military. I had no interest in taking any kind of leadership position - my only interest was working within the technical field of my MOS. And without this option, many who wish to make a career of the military - but either aren’t specifically suited or interested in being a leader - are forced to take the path of an NCO. And many that fast-track to NCO end up serving as a technical specialist in their MOS field without really having the technical expertise.

Sounds like it was a cool promotion system but I believe it should stay in the past. Here's why:

1. All soldiers should be well rounded, not solely MOS proficient. Warrants are the highly paid technicians who also have the capability to lead.. Giving soldiers the option to stay "non-NCO" I assess would and probably did foster a non desirable attitude. You want to stay a tech, go warrant, or learn your skills and move on to a firm outside the service to make that money.

2. Why should a tech not be required to have leadership skills? Wouldn't they have to run a shop in or even outside the Army? Warrants are techs but are required to lead and run shops and make more money than any E-4 to E6s that I'm aware of. A person who has no desire to lead will probably lack managerial skills. You would have to have some type of competitive/leadership style of behavior to even get promoted ahead of your peers I would think.

I know for a fact there were some awesome leaders that didn't want "the headaches" of leading soldiers. I just don't think the Army is the best place for that type of outlook. The Army needs leaders and followers who desire to fill the shoes of said leaders. I think having a warrant officer corps is the better way to go. If you don't have a desire to eventually lead, then there are great opportunities away from the military for the techs.

I was a Sp4 in the medical field. I was very good at my job but had zero interest in leading anyone...it's too bad they did away w it.