Posted on Jan 28, 2014
Should the Army bring back the Specialist titles?
952K
3.85K
1.21K
1.3K
1.3K
2
When I joined the Army we Specialist 4-6 (SP7 had just been discontinued). It provided those Soldiers who had technical expertise and experience the opportunity to progress and earn more pay. However they typically were not "green tab" leaders and were subordinate in rank to a "sergeant" of the same pay grade (SSG & SP6). I've often thought over the years that the Army deleted a program that brought added value to the organization by discontinuing these ranks, as not all Soldiers are not going to be good leaders but should have the opportunity to progress based on their occupational expertise.
Should the Army bring these ranks back?
Should the Army bring these ranks back?
Rank
Promotions
Specialist
Soldiers
SP6
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 708
1
1
0
my happiest time in the army was when i was a sp5 medic in the 82nd avn bn, i was a leader for the sp4s and pvts in the med plt- when i retired from the nat'l guard as a ssg in a truck co. my position was technically would have been a sp6 position, my leadership was my knowledge of the job and my mechanical expertise in training the junior drivers, and i was just happy with that
(1)
(0)
SSG John Jensen
and my sr ncos didn't consider me as a proper nco because i wasn't a backstabber, and a lot of them refused to drive the trucks
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe so. But will it be recognized in terms of a leadership rank? As an SPC, I was continually told what to do by a Corporal, who lacked leadership. Often times, I was thrust into his position for the aforementioned reason. My take on it. Blessings.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Specialist are a important stage of military life, it shows who is going to be a good leader and who maybe a good tech. I agree a good soldier (who may not be a good leader) should be able to serve a specialist 4-9. The Army would have access to subject matter experts . It would also keep good soldiers on active duty and give the soldier the pay they need to raise a family.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Better than the specialist designation, go a little futher back to the Technical Sergeants.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
That question rates a resounding NO from me. In the Army OR Marines, EVERYBODY IS A GRUNT. Technical specialties are in addition to the duties of taking a fight to the enemy. That means ALL of it's members need to be capable of command. Technical specialties are simply another weapon to be deployed in defeating an enemy. Even medicine. In short, they are nothing more than special weapons qualifications. Far too often in history cooks, mechanics, and even medics have been handed a rifle and assigned to defend a position or mount an assault. It's the nature of the beast. Soldiers are technicians in their own right. The weapons get more complex, and even basic marksmanship is getting more complex. The days of the "stupid grunt" never existed. It's time to face that fact.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
We have many who are currently serving who do not possess the necessary characteristics of a Leader. Ever hear of Toxic Leadership? It is one result of the mindset that all service members are trainable. Not every service member have the ability to lead or manage. We used to separate the wheat from the chaff at PNCOC (WLC) and continue to do so at each level of Professional military education or NCO academy. Contrary to belief not everyone is capable of being a grunt, not now or ever. Would you say that every 2LT that you worked with should have been promoted? That every CPT was a great Company Commander and deserved a Battalion? BTW, I have been a Grunt for more than a day or two.
(1)
(0)
SGT Leigh Barton
I've been on the business end of toxic leadership before. It's one luxury no ground force will ever be able to afford. Taking it from the top, what options are there? The lack of leadership skills are going to be toxic whether they're in an Infantry platoon, hospital clinic, maintenance shop, or any other place they're utilized. It's a military service we're talking about, not a college campus.
As for growing a shavetail into a lieutenant or that Company Commander into a Battalion Commander, I thought that was the primary function of the NCO corps.
Maybe we should take a look at the United Kingdom and their approach. Their service is set up to accommodate career privates. That way the troops advance at the time and to the level appropriate for them. When THEY'RE ready, not when someone in an obscure office thinks they should be ready.
As for growing a shavetail into a lieutenant or that Company Commander into a Battalion Commander, I thought that was the primary function of the NCO corps.
Maybe we should take a look at the United Kingdom and their approach. Their service is set up to accommodate career privates. That way the troops advance at the time and to the level appropriate for them. When THEY'RE ready, not when someone in an obscure office thinks they should be ready.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
In a downsizing force that is embracing the reality of doing more with less, now is not the time to be entertaining the reintroduction of a concept by which we do not get the maximum out of our enlisted force. Those who are not competitive to advance in their careers as NCOs are those that must be cut from the force in the years to come. However, in an expanding force, as we had 10-12 years ago, I think the idea has some merit to it.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I do recall a Soldier who received this as an NCOER bullet: "Presents the most compelling argument yet for the reimplementation of the advanced Specialist Rank structure."
The Soldier was white-shit hot as an CBRN NCO. Outside of that realm however, he was a one-man wrecking crew.
The Soldier was white-shit hot as an CBRN NCO. Outside of that realm however, he was a one-man wrecking crew.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Your logic doesn't hold water. Specialists would be the equivalent of what Warrant Officers are to the officer ranks, but to the enlisted side of the house...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
They should bring it back. It is ludicrous to think everyone who makes the Army a career is capable of being in a leadership role, or even want to for that matter. I've known plenty of good hard workers that have left the service because they had no yearning to become an NCO...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would disagree with this. Maybe it is just me but it just seemed like I fell in with a good group of soldiers. Had our share of turd-birds in the NCO and Officer ranks-they were truly the exception and not the rule. Worked with six different 1SG's and truly only one I despised and hated. All the rest were good leaders(Was a supply Sgt in a CAV Scout unit and so always worked with them and Commanders/XO's and then a couple years at Medhold in Walter Reed). Most PLT Sgt's SFC's were pretty good and never had one over me I thought was a bad leader.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. The "specialist" rank has been tried and abandoned at least 2 times. In WW2 era there were T sergeants, in the post WW2 era there were specialist. Each time the Army decided the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. Doing it again would only be... repeating what does not work... which is the definition of insanity.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google