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

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