• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Maj or Capt as OC (Split from: UP FROM THE RANKS!)

devil39

Sr. Member
Reaction score
39
Points
330
tomahawk6 said:
There has been some discussion about adopting the UK/Canadian system where Major's command a company. This might work in a smaller army where you want to create job's for Major's. I think it creates a glut of Major's with limited opportunity to advance to LTC. Our most recent promotion list to Major selected an amazing 96% of eligible Captain's. But selection to LTC is even more competitive and until Iraq we utilize an up or out policy. Meaning if you are passed over twice you are out [under the rank of LTC]. If a LTC fail's to get promoted he/she can stay until manadatory retirement. I think Major's are future battalion commander's and need to be a Bn S-3 and a Bn XO not a company CO. Our junior leader's [Lt/Capt] have done an outstanding job in both Iraq and Afghanistan so our officer training must be effective.


Coy Comds as Majors is not about creating jobs for Majors, it is about trying to strike a balance between age and experience.    I would suggest that our leaders at all levels are more experienced than their equivalent in the US Army... at the Bn level and below.  

We work our ranks and employment in the Bn the other way around.   Bn S-3 is the junior Major or a Senior Captain.   Coy Comds are not out ranked by Bn S-3.   This leads to a somewhat different dynamic, we don't hesitate to question the Bn S-3, for as a Coy Comd we have all done his job, or an equivalent job in the Capt pecking order S-1 (Adjt) or 2 IC Admin Coy (what ever you call the 2IC to the S4).

In our Army, future Bn Comds generally need to be a Bde G3 or equivalent high priced Major in an Area staff or on the Army staff.   The top Majors job in a Bn is DCO (XO) followed by OC Admin (S-4), then Rifle Coys and Combat Support Coy.   Ops O is generally the junior Major, at least in my Regiment.  


 
Tomahawk 6: I echo devil 39s words. I agree fully that your junior officers are doing a great job: I see that everyday here in Afghanistan and in fact I am doing some live research on it. However, they are also faced by an operation (in Afghanistan, anyway) in which Coy Comds are taking on responsibilities and autonomy that was not at all normal for that rank level in conventional Infantry units, or that experience level, prior to this operation. I know this because I have interviewed a bunch of these guys.

Let's face it: in your Army, on the conventional side, a company was until recently, pretty small potatoes. Perhaps that is why such a young officer was given command of it. You have a great big army, with lots of firepower and people, and you manoeuvre real divisions and corps around. We have never had that degree of resourcing, nor that size of force in the field, since WWII.

Our Army since WWII  has always been a small, volunteer professional army. Much more emphasis has historically been placed on smaller operations, at battalion and below than was typical for your conventional forces  except possibly during Vietnam, until recently. We expect a company commander to be able to command a combat team on operations,which can include a full mech rifle company, up to a tank squadron (= US company), engineers, artillery and mortar fire control teams, and possibly air defence elements. In order to do this effectively, while beng a master of his Infantry craft and fully understanding battalion and higher level operations, we (along with the UK, the AUS, the NZ and the Indian Armies) believe that the officer rank level that best gives us this experience and knowledge is at the rank of major. He is assisted by a Capt who is normally capable of commanding the company, and a Company Sgt Maj. The level of experience represented by this team is normally considerable.

We also believe that an officer should not command a battalion unless he has had solid experience as a company commander first. Normally, prior to taking command of a battalion, an officer will also have been either the Ops O (S3) or Adjt (S-1), giving him staff exposure to the Bn HQ. As devil 39 pointed out, we are very clear in our Army that the Ops O is staff officer only: the OCs of the companies normally listen to hm, but they have direct line to the CO as commanders in their own right. I have been an Ops O and I learned this to my discomfort.

I am not so sure that, based on what I have recently heard here, that all or even most  of  your Majs will become battalion commanders. I am told that only about 15% of your LCol will  be selected for command, so if you do the math that puts a bit of a different perspective on it.

Different strokes for different armies.

Cheers.

 
pbi said:
I am not so sure that, based on what I have recently heard here, that all or even most   of   your Majs will become battalion commanders. I am told that only about 15% of your LCol will   be selected for command, so if you do the math that puts a bit of a different perspective on it.

Not all of our Major's get promoted to LTC. In FY04 the Infantry selection rate to LTC was 85.4% [Army wide it was 76.9%].
Competition for battalion command is very stiff. The FY06 command selection board for Bn CO will select select 83 officers to fill 30 tactical, 13 training and strategic support, 16 institutional garrison commands, and 24 institutional recruiting commands.

Our company commander's act as task force commander's with additional slice elements attached. In some cases due to attachments a platoon leader might be leading 80 soldiers. The infantry company will usually have an artillery FO and a USAF FO team [depending on the mission]. There is no question that in your system the company CO has alot more experience than his US counterpart. But then again you are comparing an officer with an advantage in year's of service. Our company CO might have 4-7 year's of total service. When comparing Captain's I think the US Captain after completing a company command tour would have the edge over his Canadian counterpart. But you are right each Army is different and both countries seem to have a successful method for officer career patterns.
has more troop experience.
 
tomahawk6: a significant difference, and an advantage, to the US Army today is that your young compny commanders (at least the ones here in Afgh) are getting a huge dose of experience in all three blocks of the "Three Block War" and are growing professionally in a manner that at the moment is difficult for our Army to equal. Devil39, a brother officer from my Regiment, is one of the very few Canadian officers who has recently been deployed on a combat operation. Since the experience of his unit in OEF a few years ago, we have concentrated on the first two blocks in terms of ops, while still trying to keep alive training for the third block (difficult in a small, poor Army with a Govt that historically does not like the military and does not yet know what its own foreign/defence policy is supposed to be). My impression is that if your Army listens to what your squad leaders, platoon and company commanders have to say about their experiences here, you will become a much different army, and much for the better. I am certainly very impressed.

For us, the issue of experience levels issue is linked to the fact that we cannot claim mass, huge firepower or overwhelming logistics as points in our favour as an Army. We cannot call on B1s, or AHs, or M1 tanks or MLRS (unless you provide them in support to us). We must rely almost totally on the quality of our people, and try to leverage the capabilities we have by putting them in the hands of experienced individuals. It is to this fact that we can attribute the very high degree of success we achieve when we take courses in the US, go on exercise with (or against) your forces, or serve in your HQs (as BGen Natynczyk and several officers are doing in Iraq, and MGen Hillier did in your Armoured Corps HQ). We haven't got much else except our people, so we have been driven to do things differently from you guys.

Cheers.
 
Traditionally in the UK, the Army feels that a Major has just that much more experience and maturity.  In the Marines on the other hand,  over half of the company's are commanded by Captains.

We (the Marines) know it is because we are instilled with the thought or urge to husband our human resources (read troops) almost fanatically.  Traditionally, Royal Marine Light Infantry and Royal Marine Commando's cannot expect to have timely (or any) reenforcement.

The Army we feel doesn't not put enough emphasis on this. 

The Royal Marines are also a much smaller force.  We have had a few problems over the years with over eager Majors from Army support units trying to overrule what they have felt was an overly aggressive move by RM Company commanders who were Captains.
 
Back
Top