Posted on May 16, 2022
Why does the US Army persist with the rank of SP4?
86.4K
1.38K
326
292
292
0
Responses: 163
IMNSHO the real reason the Army kept the rank of specialist is so they can use it as a recruiting tool. The Army will give you E2, E3, and on some rare instances E4 on enlisting, and as such you can be administratively advanced by the stroke of a pen in your COC likes you. The reality is quite different and in some MOS's you are looking at ten years to make E5. But hey, you got to get them to sign on the dotted like....
(1)
(0)
I got out of the Army in 1975. I remember Spec 5,6,7's. For the most part, they were cooks in the mess hall and as such, they were shown respect. You don't want a cook to hate you.
Spec 4's, on the other hand, were just better paid privates. Team leader wasn't an authority position. I only remember them being designated on FTX. Even I was Fire Team leader as a PFC. And squad leaders were E-5 Sergeants.
Spec 4's, on the other hand, were just better paid privates. Team leader wasn't an authority position. I only remember them being designated on FTX. Even I was Fire Team leader as a PFC. And squad leaders were E-5 Sergeants.
(1)
(0)
the military (and civilian) often promotes to the highest grade of inefficiency . specialist ranks would keep professionals who are not at their best for leading and the system would be much better . there are warrant officers, so why not specialist enlisted ?
(1)
(0)
How many of you, (besides myself) have actually walked by someone in the Army who was wearing corporal stripes?
(1)
(0)
CPT Earl George
I had a corporal work for me when I commanded a BCT company as my armorer. He assisted the supply sergeant at times and helped the drill sergeants on the rifle range.
(0)
(0)
As AF had similar concerns about Airmen 1st Class a Sargent, or not? But at Army buck Sargent pay grade, in the 1963 stone age I reported for duty:) There seem little reason behind any of the changes. Even the change of the form of the chevrons from the civil war should have been left alone:) The box fatigue cap like Castro made famous was much cooler, military lookin then some dumb baseball cap hat:) The SP4 information I have is that thry were usually awarded straight out of some specialty school. Which was usually attached pass was in evidence on same sleeve.
(1)
(0)
I look at it this way. I was in a platoon when everyone was SP4. However, you had to have someone in the platoon to be the squad leader. Since none of us had enough promotion points to be promoted to Sergeant, one of us was promoted to Corporal. WHY? Because an NCO was needed in that position.
(1)
(0)
The right way to go about this is up for debate. Bringing back the Specialist Corps to maximize technical expertise, permitting lateral appointments for those in leadership positions is one way, but there was certainly a reason for the elimination of SP5-SP9. For that reason, eliminating SPC altogether is another option. Why not make PFCs board for CPL? Why not make the E4 MTOE/TDA positions leadership positions? If we’re saving the Army money and legitimizing the NCO Corps, then let’s be honest: CPL stripes are a joke. SGT responsibility at SPC pay. Maybe even shift skill levels to allow progression to begin at E4, i.e.: CPL=SL2, SGT=SL3, etc.
(1)
(0)
MSG Todd Black
This is one thing I like about the Marine Corps: they tend to be FAR better than the Army with mentoring and developing junior leaders to fill CPL and SGT ranks. The Marines promote much slower, allowing for greater time for learning the job. Working with MARSOC, a Marine who was E-5 had typically been in for 4 or 5 years. They didn't pin on E-6 until 9 years - when we in SF were pinning on E-7. In SF, and E-6 was a rookie. In the Marines, it was a veteran - and I had to explain that to Army guys. In Iraq, Marine CPLs or SGTs would typicallyl lead patrols or QRF. I saw SGTs in the Army's conventional units doing the same. In SF, it was always an O-3, CW2, or E-8 leading patrols. Sometimes a senior E-7 would lead, but I've had to explain to the AOB/company commander why an E-7 was leading a patrol instead of a higher rank; and I've had my AOB sergeant major flat-out refuse to allow me (and E-8) let E-7s lead patrols. Special Forces leadership simply don't trust anyone E-7 or below to accomplish routine missions the regular Army allowed E-5s to do. Because of this, there was little leadership mentoring and learning in SF once you got out of SFQC. Another thing I admired about working in a MARSOC battalion is during battalion commander meetings sometimes an E-5 would represent their company due to the company leadership being unavailable and the bn cdr would SERIOUSLY listen to them. In SF, they did not want you talking to the bn cdr unless you were at least an E-8, and even then MAYBE. There is simplly little trust in NCOs in the SF community today - especially by the E-9 mafia.
(0)
(0)
The "specialist" ranks made some sense when they were integrated. What does one become after SP4? If there is no way to rise in rank as a specialist why bother with keeping the SP4? Back in the '50's when this started it did not make much sense. Your MOS decides what you do, your rank is your level in that MOS. It works in the Corps and the Air Force why not the Army?
(1)
(0)
Most of the time I get some real nostalgia at 76 years old reading the questions, but this kind of questions smells civilian:) Without the sergeants no battles could be fought, while suspect some officers are competent, they did not have to work their way to their position. They did not nurture the troops from nothing civilians to a cohesive group of men, and now women who can, and do more than the total sum of their numbers would be thought possible. Under usually awful conditions, c-rats to eat and maybe warm water to drink over long dull dangerous areas were folks are shooting at ya. Remember what my dad said, a WWII ammo truck driver in Europe. They were everybody's older brother, they knew what was going on, because they were responsible for troops every minute! So stayed aware and trained all around them while leading. Was 17 when I forged my parents signature to enlist, am here today because I listened to the one person who always knew what to do, and he was always a Sargent. Not a clueless civilian trying to comprehend group cohesion and trained disciple for a dangerous, absolutely necessary supposed citizen duty.
(1)
(0)
Yes a Speed E 4 IS less than leader than a corp. That is what the freaking rank is all about. And since like some have stated we have a lot more tech type jobs a Sp. designation is more appropriate since that is the kind of work they do. And if they show leadership skills they can be promoted up in that line at some point.
(1)
(0)
SPC4 can be used as a team leader, but typically a team leader is a CPL (temporary rank) until he/she is eligible for promotion to SGT. We don't need high paid SPCs (SPC6/SPC7) in a power struggle with a lower NCO (SGT/SSG).
(1)
(0)
SSG Ted Strachan
I was in when we still had SP5s and 6s. Had a number of both in both my units in 1CD and 3AD. Never saw a "power struggle". They were professionals and conducted themselves accordingly.
(1)
(0)
Before we talk about why shouldn't, let's talk about qualifications. To be a sergeant, one must pass the promotion board and the primary leader course (I think they call a warrior leader course now, anyone?). After these two official qualifications, one is given some benefits of the doubt that one understand and know how to lead the troops, make plan, execute a mission according to the commander's intent, and know how-to conduct force conservation and sustainment. If one passed the two qualifications but one lacks the promotion scores to meet the cut-off points, what should they do to distinguish themselves from other E4? After all the Army is all about distinguishing itself above peers, we are a bunch of egotistical maniacs. Do you get my points?
Now, about other specialist ranks, prior to the 1980s, not everyone can read or write, but they can do their jobs or they can shoot better than Lee Harvey Oswald. As much as you require merit, you also need to be able to work with others. Or rather, your chain of command has to want to work with you. Remember Top Gun? However, prejudice and favoritism have also existed; after all, we are only human. So, to be fair, everyone is given a fair chance to move up or move out. Plus, with the all-volunteer army, the Army can pick what quality they want. However, with picking and choosing, the Army ended up short-handed most of the time, but always losing and gaining people. It's a pain for the admin to change back and forth individual ranks officially. And the rest of the other logical reasons are pretty much the same as the officer and warrant officers, just on the enlisted side and with less civilian education and occupation specialty.
These are my deducted logical answers. Otherwise, let the son'bich who made the changes tell you.
Now, about other specialist ranks, prior to the 1980s, not everyone can read or write, but they can do their jobs or they can shoot better than Lee Harvey Oswald. As much as you require merit, you also need to be able to work with others. Or rather, your chain of command has to want to work with you. Remember Top Gun? However, prejudice and favoritism have also existed; after all, we are only human. So, to be fair, everyone is given a fair chance to move up or move out. Plus, with the all-volunteer army, the Army can pick what quality they want. However, with picking and choosing, the Army ended up short-handed most of the time, but always losing and gaining people. It's a pain for the admin to change back and forth individual ranks officially. And the rest of the other logical reasons are pretty much the same as the officer and warrant officers, just on the enlisted side and with less civilian education and occupation specialty.
These are my deducted logical answers. Otherwise, let the son'bich who made the changes tell you.
(1)
(0)
It’s an obscure Vietnam era leftover and waste of money. Now that corporal rank is resurrected, SPC should be gone. AF and AF too, E-1/E-3 should be freebies and if you don’t go to a slotted NCO position of corporal and leader in say 8 years, you’re booted out as an E-3. You want E-4 pay? Be a slotted NCO, a leader and go to NCO school. We would save untold millions. Be a leader or stay E-3 and below.
(0)
(0)
I absolutely don't understand the Army logic. They want everyone to be a leader and in doing so they loose great technicians and operators. Back B 4 the E4 to E9 Specialist ranks they had Technical Sergeants. If you want to keep the best Technicians and operators, go back to the T ranks or the Specialists. Me, 20+ Army and retired. I had a SP5 that was our best Electronics Technician that the Army was going to kick out because of the up or out policy. In his MOS then he would have been promoted to SSG and he refused to go before the promotion board. The Army lost a most valuable asset because he did not want to be a NCO. In his case, there should have been a SP6 billet and he would have stayed. .
(0)
(0)
I was just a damned dumb supply specialist. I had no desire to lead Soldiers. What I DID do was have 4 CoC inventories in a row with ZERO FLIPLS, help shut down a unit permanently, and write part break-downs in PBUSE. I would have been a SP6 or SP7 due to my knowledge and skill, I just never wanted to be a leader.
(0)
(0)
You need to understand that at times all troops can be called to take up leadership positions. Being a spec4 who on had leadership positions was a hindered my ability to do my job. In time of war that can get troops killed.
(0)
(0)
I to believe the specialist ranks should be for those in technical fields and not combat arms. I still believe that corporal is a rank that should be used for combat arms to distinguish those from technical MOS. The problem lies in the factor is who decides who should be a specialist or an NCO with rank of corporal and above. It is left up to the unit commander and if does not like you, you become a specialist.
(0)
(0)
The new Army! What happened to sp-5,6,7, ? If you don't have stripes you don't mean nothing!
(0)
(0)
In my opinion, a Corporal is no more a leader than a SP4. They both get paid the same in the Army. And, a SP4 can also serve as a combat soldier.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next