Posted on Nov 28, 2016
What was the purpose of the higher Specialist ranks?
213K
483
234
53
53
0
Responses: 98
A specialist dealt with his/her craft/trade/skill not a people trainer. much like the warrant officers, more of a trade and less troop movements.
(1)
(0)
The Center for Military History Published this SPC (Join to see) . http://ncohistory.com/site/2018/01/02/short-history-specialist-rank/
(1)
(0)
I continue to believe that no soldier was ever promoted to either SP8 or SP9, all the DA Memos verify this, butvwhy do some say these 2 Ranks were used?
I would like just one photo of with rank on a person.
My email: [login to see]
I would like just one photo of with rank on a person.
My email: [login to see]
(1)
(0)
I believe specialist rank only went up to E7. I was a Spec5 and they offered me 6 and 6 for 6. Thats a promotion to E6 and $6000 if I re upped for 6 years. This was back in 69.
(1)
(0)
Was a Sp-4 (full-bird PFC) 1960-1962. HF radio tech. We did not think about rank very much. The lab was not very military. So the rank (or what ever it was) was great for us. Pay of a Corporal without having to do the military thing.
(1)
(0)
I do believe from ww2 to Vietnam it was a Tec and not spc some time in the late 60's early 70s they changed over to spc they had the rank of cpl in the army but only in the Infantry don't know any more
(1)
(0)
CSM Clifford Fargason
The specialist ranks went into effect in 1955, in the latter part of the 80s all but the SP4 (now SPC) ranks converted to NCO ranks. Also CPL is not just an infantry rank.
(2)
(0)
If I remember right a specialist designation was for whatever field a soldier'd specific training in as opposed to a straight infantry designation.
(1)
(0)
SPC Jimmy Rooks I
Actually the Specialist ranks were the Enlisted version of Warrant Officers! Technicians rather than combat soldiers!
(1)
(0)
Thing is, I med- discharged as a SSG(P) never a SP6! Where they got THAT From I have no clue. Rank was deprecated long before I went in in 87
(1)
(0)
These ranks were also used for people who were good at their job, but not necessarily good leaders. There are a couple of guys in my company that are really good at their jobs, but aren't the kind of person who would make a good leader. This has held them back from promotion. I wish they would bring those ranks back for guys like that. They don't necessarily deserve to be held back just because they aren't good leaders.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Those are the criteria for promotion today, though, and have been for many years. It has made a big difference for many troops with the "up or out" policy who couldn't get promoted to NCO grades (SGT or SSG) and couldn't stay in past their Retention Control Points. We did lose some good, technically proficient soldiers that way, but in the Army's infinite wisdom /sarcasm font/ they decided we didn't need those soldiers so much.
(2)
(0)
For me SP5 was a right of passage to being a Sgt in 63 series , & 64 series. The SP6 & 7 that I ran into drove staff car for NATO. SP`s were just that, techs in what they did. Some times they filled in where there were ether no NCO`s or just 1 NCO in a platoon .In 1975 I went from SP4 to Sgt because they did away with SP5 in maintenances .
(1)
(0)
Read This Next