Why does the US Army persist with the rank of SP4?

My father was in the army in WW II. I'm old by the way, and he did his 6 years and got to E6 as a Spec 6. My father was a radio and electronics guy. He said that under that system there was a lot of confusion caused by the fact that a Spec 6 outranked an NCO 5, but an NCO had authority while as Spec did not. Usually, common sense prevailed. If they were trying to hook up coms, for example, everyone did what the specialist said, and if it was combat you followed the NCO, but every now and then you would get people with ego issues that would interfere with military preparedness.

I was an Asst NCOIC as a speedy 4 in the early 60's. I gave briefings (instructions) to NCOs who were assigned to me on detail. Life was rough as an E4 in charge of a service club, but someone had to do it. The Army always put you where you were needed. I was an artist illustrator that was assigned to work with the USO ladies. It worked out fine, it was a great tour. SP4s to me were the technicians and talented troupes. The old Tech 4's. It was a great foundation that lead to better things.

I remember several SP6 and SP7 however, that was 73-77, personally I think E4 Corporal was and is more appropriate

It was interesting reading the different answers. As an Army brat and a career DOD civilian (Ret), I remember the higher Spec ranks.

As the military moves toward more technical jobs requiring increased STEM knowledge, perhaps it is time to bring back the higher Specs to address those needs. After all, we have warrant officers, which is also a technical skills rank class through CW-5.

Is there a good reason to eliminate leadership responsibility from the Spec ranks? If you have a unit with network gear, do you need an SFC with them when a Spc-7 could provide the leadership and have the STEM knowledge? That leaves the SFC available for combat-related positions. Perhaps the Specs do not have tactical command authority over anyone other than the Specs. That is similar to the warrants, who, in reality, receive a lot of respect from the enlisted and commissioned because of their proficiency in their field.

Leadership training for Spc-5 and higher is necessary, but not at the intensity of NCOs. It also offers more incentive to become a warrant officer to provide unit-level leadership. The military must retain the most proficient techs.

Perhaps the specialist career fields could see a pay incentive to continue their enlistment instead of four-and-gone.

I know a military firefighter who did not want NCO command responsibility but would accept fire crew leadership. They did not wish to have NCO responsibilities. Spc-5 was long gone, and they left the Army even though they did not want to go. The Army lost those years of experience, but the civilian side of firefighting gained it when they returned as Department of the Army civilian firefighter, making almost $15K more yearly. Army one week and DAC the next.

Without a doubt, there are great arguments for and against the idea. However, if retaining the best talent is one of the Army's goals, they are leaking the more experienced technical troops only to replace them with someone fresh from basic and MOS schools.

That is my two cents worth. If you need any change because that was too much, let me know.

I’m a proud former SP5 experiment!

I was an SP5 when I was discharged from the Army. I did primarily Technical duty instead of leading troops. Even though I wasn't technically a leader type NCO I found myself as squad leader and temporary platoon leader. I believe I filled both roles quite adequately. If an regular NCO showed up He/She would take over leadership duties. I simply filled in when necessary.

I agree partially with SPC Ford. The issue I have with his statement is that even senior tech people have to lead occasionally, not like a senior Sgt does but in his field of knowledge. They need to be able to share their knowledge and skills with their juniors and make sure they are doing the things they need to be doing to get the job done. But paying people more for the skills and knowledge they have? That is a no-brainer!

The Specialist ranks were started as a extension of the WWII & Korea War eras of the 'Technical' ranks. Was in the late 50's or, early '60's that they started. When I enlisted in 1965 the only Corporals were gun captains in Artillery units or, NCO's that had been reduced in rank. My entire service was in the Infantry and when promoted from PFC it was to SP4, next promotion was to Sgt, and then Ssg.

What I have learned from this exercise question about Soecialists is that the majority prefer having Specialists of all ranks. But should it be based solely on the MOS?

It is called the process of elimination. It is social experimentation. You think about it who joins up to do what is required of the Military? It is the mover and shakers that get the job done. An SP4 is a good rank. You do not get paid a lot but can still have fun. It allows you to get some experience but then it does not put you in full command. You can train a man to make right decision but you can not teach him how to take command. Me, I was an SP4 for three months before I made Sergeant. When I realized it was better to make the rules than suffer the brunt of them. My whole career changed. The Army was a great place to grow up.