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

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).

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.

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.

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. .

I agree with the SPC below , that makes sense. Semper Fi

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.

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.

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.

The new Army! What happened to sp-5,6,7, ? If you don't have stripes you don't mean nothing!

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.

I was a SP-4, SP-5 1961-1963. After active duty I ended as DAC personnel specialist, highest grade GS-13. The training I received on active duty required 8 months full time classroom equivalent. There really wasn't time for normal military skills training. I was on a 3-year enlistment. For the Army to get "its money back", have a rational investment in me they paid me for learning and exercising my skill. I was very good at my job and I believe the Army got its money back. However there was no way I was qualified to move into a combat arms unit. I would have gotten people killed needlessly. Another point not mentioned. During my DAC years I saw an increasing use of DACs in combat zones as advisors, technical specialist and trainers. There is an absolute need for technical specialists along side combat arms personnel. Whether the specialist is a DAC or an SP-5/6/7/8/9 needs careful evaluation by the Army. (think insurance, training, equiping, responsibility and chain of Command)

No it's not, I was SP4 in 1989 and 1990. I was a team leader and acting Squad leader of 4 teams when the Squad Sargent was hospitalized. I was scheduled for PLDC school, but Justcause popped up and was deployed to it.

military and non military have ongoing deeds and activities regarding hierarchies and ranks and grades ranging fron sensical to nonsensical

I got out of the USMC in 1958, and joined the army guard as a Spec 4 in my home town. (117th AIB). When we went to two weeks of summer camp, the first thing I noticed that the Army was not on marching they could march in a straight line) but other that they were lost. (The master sergeant call me out of ranks one day while we were marching down the street, and said march them. I said I can’t march them as there some higher ranks them I am in the formation, he said march them. I gave them a command of “Left Oblique” the formation was all over the street. I called ‘Halt” fall in. the master sergeant asked what kind of command was that. So I went through some of the drill commands that we used in the USMC. That was the last time I was asked to march the formation.
From what I was of the army my short time in the Guard was that all ranks needed more training in leadership, and the job each man done in their unit. (We were taught in the USMC the job of each man in the fire team and if a PVT or any other rate could take command of the unit if he was he was highest ranking person left to command.
I had a E-6 working for me in the navy who didn’t want to go any higher (I would put him in for E-7 he would take the test, he said he marked number four on all the question and turned it in). He was an outstanding E-6 as he knew his job, trained his people well and set an example for the people he was in charge of, but he didn’t want to go any higher than E-6.
Maybe the Army need to rethink their training of their people.

The specialist grade depends on what your MOS is.

Supply, in a sense by essence of the job description, spec4 as clerk is a good thing rather than corporal, however for command staff and discipline within logistics need top notch NCO's like everywhere in the military.

My son is infantry, if the supply chains lack any necessary discipline, he struggles and we lose the infantry, well guess supply is going to have to be the front line

The thing that confuses me when I see questions like this, and all these replies, is this is exactly what the Warrant Officer corps is doctrinally designed to be; technical specialists and advisors almost entirely without leadership or command requirements. Many of the Warrant specialties do require E5/E6 rank for selection. However, the Army is considering removing *any* prior service requirements for some specialties - historically Aviation Warrants have serve as an example. If the selection process needs to be revised further to provide for that, we should do that.

So that you can pay soldiers more, without having to make them NCO's.

I am out of my element to a point. I served in the Navy. We had NEC's. As we advanced we took leadership courses along with our MOS or NEC. Navy courses and navywide exams. You needed permisssion from chain of command to take courses and the Navywide exams. You would not be advanced without thse steps. Advancement meant more responsibilities for the rank and pay. You could be the best technician in the world but the leadership part comes with that. Onboard ship every manand woman needs to have the others six. That is why we were trained and cross trained.

It seems to me that the military has lost sight of what the specialist rank is for. Transportation for instance. Specialists drive the trucks. My most was 64B20. I drove a 5 ton S&P delivering stuff to all the military bases in most of West Germany, including Air Force bases. That required a specialist rank, not a Sgt. rank. If you want to be a platoon leader go to NCO school.

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.

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.

They need more privates of the guard than they do sergeants (NCOs) of the guard.

Because 99% are not ready to be Corporals after 24 months!

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.

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.

What about the old USAF "Buck" Sergeant (E-4)

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.

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.

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