Posted on May 16, 2022
Why does the US Army persist with the rank of SP4?
86.6K
1.38K
326
292
292
0
Responses: 163
Because it allows the Army to promote to the E4 grade without hitting Congressional strength limitations. The Army can only have so many Corporals, Sergeants, Staff Sergeants etc. Privates thru Specialist grades are unregulated.
(0)
(0)
As an E-4, when I left service, I can tell you the following. The E-4s in combat MOS were used the same way Cpl was. I had soldiers I was responsible for, and my E-5 was in charge of both of our teams. The difference was all the BS our Cpl was expected to do to prove himself as an NCO vs me.
I had the technical know how that he did. I had the same experience level and exposure, and the same pay. What I didn't have was the separation. He was an NCO and therefore was not seen as the same level and actually had less respect that I did from the lower enlisted. He was a "Baby NCO", and that attitude was made worse by the senior enlisted and how they treated him.
Then came the school opportunities. I had way more than he did, because of his "Leadership Duties." Which mostly consisted of Gate Guard and Trash Detail because the senior enlisted would shuffle it off to him. I am all for paying your dues, but when you have an experienced squad weapon crew leader now shuffling paperwork, and doing all the crap jobs, and not on that M-60, you have a misuse of assets.
Bringing back the tech ranks would solve a lot of that. You would have people that are suited to command in command. Where the best 60 gunner I ever saw would be where he was happy, calling in artillery and rocking the 60. He left the Army after a year and a half with his stripes. He was planning to make it a career. He was a great soldier.
Last item, the person below comparing the Marines to the Army... STOP!! Although they have crossover, the Marines and the Army are not the same. They have different mission profiles, history, and culture. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other. I compare us to one big disfunctional family. We love each other, are radically different, compete a lot, and protect each other. But you can not compare the services as apples to apples.
I had the technical know how that he did. I had the same experience level and exposure, and the same pay. What I didn't have was the separation. He was an NCO and therefore was not seen as the same level and actually had less respect that I did from the lower enlisted. He was a "Baby NCO", and that attitude was made worse by the senior enlisted and how they treated him.
Then came the school opportunities. I had way more than he did, because of his "Leadership Duties." Which mostly consisted of Gate Guard and Trash Detail because the senior enlisted would shuffle it off to him. I am all for paying your dues, but when you have an experienced squad weapon crew leader now shuffling paperwork, and doing all the crap jobs, and not on that M-60, you have a misuse of assets.
Bringing back the tech ranks would solve a lot of that. You would have people that are suited to command in command. Where the best 60 gunner I ever saw would be where he was happy, calling in artillery and rocking the 60. He left the Army after a year and a half with his stripes. He was planning to make it a career. He was a great soldier.
Last item, the person below comparing the Marines to the Army... STOP!! Although they have crossover, the Marines and the Army are not the same. They have different mission profiles, history, and culture. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other. I compare us to one big disfunctional family. We love each other, are radically different, compete a lot, and protect each other. But you can not compare the services as apples to apples.
(0)
(0)
They need more privates of the guard than they do sergeants (NCOs) of the guard.
(0)
(0)
I think it's straight up a recruiting tool. If I recall correctly, no other service allows a pathway to enlist at the rank of E4 (as well, without a degree those with a commercial drivers license can get in as E4 as 88M's). Other than that I see no material benefit for it.
The whole CPL NCO role is kind of getting diluted as well now that all SPC's are being sent through BLC come out as CPL's. So CPL is now more or less an "I completed BLC" marker and effectively is the same as SPC(P).
With the advent of contractors the Specialist pay grade makes even less sense.
So in time of war, and need and when the DOD is ramping up recruiting, if one wants to enlist and isn't focused on a particular service then the Army can dangle that carrot.
The whole CPL NCO role is kind of getting diluted as well now that all SPC's are being sent through BLC come out as CPL's. So CPL is now more or less an "I completed BLC" marker and effectively is the same as SPC(P).
With the advent of contractors the Specialist pay grade makes even less sense.
So in time of war, and need and when the DOD is ramping up recruiting, if one wants to enlist and isn't focused on a particular service then the Army can dangle that carrot.
(0)
(0)
I was a MEDICAL CORPSMAN in the Army. My training at Fort Sam Houston/Brooke Hospital in San Antonio was almost like going to Medical school to be a DOCTOR. They gave me proficiency pay because I was able to do medical procedures that an EMT or Paramedic cannot legally do in the States. AND remember that most medical personnel did NOT carry weapons because we were considered NON-COMBATANTS and/or religious conscientious objectors (many were draftees). I left because WE signed the Geneva Convention & I also had to perform life saving measures on the enemy (Nam 1962-1965). MOS 910/911 was my introduction to war casualties (ours, theirs, civilians, animals, etc.) PTSD is a nightmare for many veterans today.
(0)
(0)
Just As Easy To Ask,
Why Should They NOT Still Have
A SP-4 Rating?.....What Difference Does It Make?...
Call It What You Will, The Occupation Remains The Same.
Why Should They NOT Still Have
A SP-4 Rating?.....What Difference Does It Make?...
Call It What You Will, The Occupation Remains The Same.
(0)
(0)
All I know is that I've seen crappy NCO's as well as "Specialists" with great leadership skills, and vice-versa. I say do away with the specialist ranks alltogether and put everyone on the same [leadership] level. I had both types of rank and I see no pressing need for the differentiation other than hurting group motivation.
(0)
(0)
I would not know.I am a permanent PFC lol..honorable too loooooool
I boughr my grave with PFC..lol.I am such a loser loooooool omg loooooool
E 3 ...FTW loooooool and honorable too.I just played around all the time..two branches tooooooo loooooooll.I never cared about getting promoted loooooooool.I am honorable which is so stupid...I do not even know how I did what I did...whatever.I am still cute and still stupid omgggg
I boughr my grave with PFC..lol.I am such a loser loooooool omg loooooool
E 3 ...FTW loooooool and honorable too.I just played around all the time..two branches tooooooo loooooooll.I never cared about getting promoted loooooooool.I am honorable which is so stupid...I do not even know how I did what I did...whatever.I am still cute and still stupid omgggg
(0)
(0)
A rank does not make a leader. Under General Mille, the most important thing in his life is how to properly address the opposite sex and queers and notifying China before, should we decide to attack.
This is not the armed Forces I was in. The Iranians continue to tweak our nose, Saudi Arabia laughs at us, Hezbollah considers the U S A military forces a joke. And we are discussing SP5? When agreed we going to wake up?
This is not the armed Forces I was in. The Iranians continue to tweak our nose, Saudi Arabia laughs at us, Hezbollah considers the U S A military forces a joke. And we are discussing SP5? When agreed we going to wake up?
(0)
(0)
The Army being the largest force in the military doesnt really have an abundance of leadership roles for everyone advancing to E4. So when SP4 promotion comes and that soldier proves very effective his unit can recommend Corporal, get him to the Sgt board.
The USMC is a much smaller force. All promotions are based on performance or better known as fitness reports.
The USMC is a much smaller force. All promotions are based on performance or better known as fitness reports.
(0)
(0)
I wish the technical spec ranks had persisted personally. I was a spec4 for far too long. My skills advanced but my padid not. I was toying with ocs due to completion of my degree. But life circumstances and injuries kept me at E4 eternally I seemed.
(0)
(0)
To answer this question, yes and no, a SP4 has some leadership duties when that person is put in that roll, a Coporal steps right up when the occasion arises, both can lead, mentor, give advice, and look after their squad, and most of all be ready to carry out assignments
(0)
(0)
Simple. Because not all E-4's can be corporals. An E-4 is promoted to corporal when a Specalist doesn't have the points to be promoted to Sergeant, but an NCO is need in that particular section.
(0)
(0)
Specialists were supposed to be the enlisted 'technicians,' with emphasis on working in their skill area instead of taking time away for leadership responsibilities. Didn't quite work out that way. Most of the SP6 and above that I ever saw were in the medical fields. I made it to SP5 in EOD back in the mid-70s, but anything above that in my field carried Staff Sgt rank.
(0)
(0)
I am not sure what you are talking about. There has not been a SP4 rank in the Army since before I joined in 1991. By your picture I will assume that you are from the Vietnam era and the SP ranks were very prevalent. The current Specialist rank was adopted in 1985 and only the old timers still call them SP4. And while a specialist in the position of team leader is the leader of that team he/she is not the same as a Corporal. They are not considered a Noncomissioned Officer they are still junior enlisted soldiers. When I was in service in order to pin Corporal stripes you had to do a few things. Be in the NCO position for a minimum of 90 days, be promotable and not have any negative actions pending. i.e. no bars or pt failure or weight control issues. Even then it was very rare to get laterally promoted to Corporal.
I will say that I do think that they should bring back the senior specialist ranks. There are some people that are excellent at their jobs, yet have no business leading Soldiers. And while we are talking about it once a Soldier makes the rank of Specialist they should get rid of the retention control points and allow them the ability to retire after 20-30 years.
I will say that I do think that they should bring back the senior specialist ranks. There are some people that are excellent at their jobs, yet have no business leading Soldiers. And while we are talking about it once a Soldier makes the rank of Specialist they should get rid of the retention control points and allow them the ability to retire after 20-30 years.
(0)
(0)
The SPEC ranks needs to come back. They should have never been 86. The ranks was sent South one by one. I was a SPEC 5 when the Army converted me to SGT around 1985. When it came to lead, I lead. But was not a born leader. A Specialist rank was specifically to his / her techeninal MOS. A Hard Striper was a generic leader to all MOSes.
(0)
(0)
The Specialist rank is career specific. Not all jobs in the military are leadership roles. Squad leader roles are corrals but clerical may not involve other troops
(0)
(0)
My thoughts on this are, most E-4's are not ready , and maybe will never be ready to make CPL, but are technically adapt enough to get the job done without supervision.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next