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.

I was a Computer Programmer/Analyst (74F30P3), working on Communications (Signal) computers, had no one reporting to me, as a SP4, and worked with SP5s and higher NCOs, our NCOIC was an SFC, and some of the NCOs were Sgt and SSG. Since I supervised no one (and the SP5s also did not supervise), there was no reason that we couldn't just be Specialists (which we were, in both senses of the word).

The history of E-4 Specialist that I read was people needed to be promoted however the Army didnt need a 100,000 Corporals which is a non-commissioned rank. Plus a guy who works in finance, a mechanic, a clerk, ect, doesn't need to be a Corporal.

When I was enlisted, although I was a SP5, I was questioned at the NCO Club because I was not a “Hard-striped” NCO! It took me aback but as you can see, I persevered. The Specialist ranks were, I believed designed for non combat-arms personnel. Now that even non combat-arms personnel are on convoys and engaging the enemy, there is no real need for these ranks anymore. Everyone is a Soldier.

In 1987 I had to run a Commo center tasking units for personnel and equipment during the fires in California at that time. When I would contact any of the units and say I was SP4 Lawrence. I would not get any cooperation from any of the units in the Division. I knew it was of the stupid Specialist rank. I asked my CO, since no one saw me, if I could identity myself as Corporal Lawrence. It was like night and day with the cooperation I got after that. So, yes! A SP4 is treated like just another private, a joke of a rank. It is just another one of the Army's really dumb ideas. I taught 50cal, M203, M60, and Com-Sec. Also ran a Company level TOC during annual training. All as a lowlife SPC4. When I had Sergeants come to my classes who did not know me. The disrespect they would show me was a little hard to take. Not all were that way but enough to piss me of sometimes. I would have to remind them who's class or range they were on or in. So, in the long run of this rambling. The rank of Specialist is one of the dumbest ideas the Army has. Along with a few others a lot of you could also name.

The question can be answered very easily and not by key board commandoes, JUST ask the Army! I am sure that within ten years you will get an answer! there will be some of you who will not get the irony of this answer and say, he's a wise ass! well you are right!

During the Draft, many years ago, a platoon-mate of mine went from E-1 to Sp-5 on the day of graduation from Basic Training. He was a journeyman plumber, who had been drafted during the war. He had only 9 weeks time in the Army, and no leadership experience, but he had a non-college talent that the Army needed (Army plumbers also maintain fuel pipelines and related systems).

So, it made perfect sense.

When I was in Vietnam, the SGT. lead us out to the field to do our "job." When we got into the field and set up our PRD (Portable Radio Direction finding) equipment , I (as a Spec/5) was then in charge. Shard leadership, worked great.

Because the corporal is a NCO and not all E-4s are ready to be or capable of being NCOs. I agree with SPC Kevin Ford, to bring back the Specialist Grades in all pay grades. the Army's "Up or Out" philosophy denies to the service some highly competent technical specialists who are crappy leaders. If someone is a GREAT truck driver and has no desire to be an NCO then why force them to become one? Let them continue to drive their truck, promote them to Specialist 5 or Specialist 6 without putting them in a box that they do not fit in.

I don't think your question can be answered directly since we do not have the input of those "in charge". I can say this for the sake of discussion. The Marines have their own version of specialist ranks but a different approach to the idea of what they do.

Every Marine, like the Army, has its ranks. A Marine who chooses the technical side become Master Sergeants and Master Gunnery Sergeants. Those who stay in side become First Sergeants and Sergeant Majors. Therefore, as a Gunny Sergeant I marked my evaluation form as remaining technical. I did not want to be a 1st Sergeant.

The difference between the Marines and Army is the function of people in those ranks. Regardless of whether or not you are in combat arms or support, everyone trains as a combat arms person. We had to pass the same PT test. We had to qualify with weapons. While doing our normal technical job, we got pulled from time to time to train in combat arms. As a fix station comm guy, I got pulled and went to training in Norfolk VA. We lined up on the Virginia Beach and pretended we just landed and then took the assigned objective. For a bunch of office poggies, supply clerks, and other assorted POGs, we did rather well. PS, POG stands for personnel other than grunts. When I went to Vietnam, I served at the Danang Air Base. We were all "Remington Raiders" of one sort or another, yet every one of us went on patrols around the Danang Area.

I guess I am saying you are hung up on "specialist". Get rid of the Spec 4 and make everyone a Corporal. Make everyone attend PLDC, BNOC, and ANOC or whatever they are called now. Make them leadership schools. They make the same people attend MOS specific schools as they advance. In the Corps I attended Comm Center school. Later I attended Comm Center Chief school. The Army can do the same. When I was in the Army National Guard, I attended PLDC and BNOC. I was also sent to numerous Intelligence courses in Georgia and North Carolina.

Get my drift? Make every a Soldier and then pick some to be other things. Make sure they all get a basic infantry education.

The specialist were to give leadership roles in technical fields
I was a spec-5 section chief in FDC in artillery