Originally Posted by sappersgt

This isn't the first time I've heard about the best and worst dichotomy of officers promoted from the ranks. In fact I've heard it often enough to believe it to be at least partially true.

The only mustangs I worked with were really good but they were all previously Sapper NCOs. Sappers were already selected from the top 3%. While attending the Battle School the only other (non Sapper) NCOs I saw there were all Sergeant Majors.

I do see the benefit of promoting from the ranks based on performance in combat. Combat itself is a school. A school with a steep learning curve. Promoting combat experienced enlisted men gives you competent small unit combat leaders. That leaves two problems. First just because you are a good platoon (or company) commander doesn't mean you're a good battalion or brigade commander. Being promoted above your level of competence can be a problem.

Secondly for every combat officer there is an equal or greater number of noncombat officers. These officers require a skill set acquired only with extensive education and training. Requiring a previous term of enlistment cuts down dramatically on the time available to train these officers. In a perfect world all of your officers could be crossed trained in combat and non combat skills to the level you desired.

Glyns comment about Danish officer cadets and the time remaining in their enlistment is telling. Their enlistments expire almost at he same time they graduate! It's evident you'd need to increase retention or extend enlistment times (IA?).

Perhaps as Shek has suggested a blend of both schools of thought schools would be best.