DRAINING Of OFFICERS CANDIDATES CE.S Si ARMY GROUND FORCES STUDY HO. 31 IISACGSC LIBRARY 1i tfrmiftf TRAINING OF OFFICERS CANDIDATES IN A G F SPECIAL TRAINING SCHOOLS Study No. 31 this dots ("Fiic Sif^ ' 1*7 $0 Historical Section . Army Ground Forces 1946 19 NwV ; S ' LLl*« AJLtiii The Army Ground Forces TRAINING OF OFFICER CANDIDATES IN AGF SPECIAL SERVICE SCHOOLS Study No, 31 By Major William R. Keast Historical Section - Army Ground Forces 1946 B E 3 T E I fc T'E D HEADQUAETERS ARMY GROUND FOECES WASHINGTON 25, D, C. 31^.7(1 Sept 19^o)GNHIS 1 September 19^5 SUBJECT: Studies in the History of Aimy Ground. Forces TO: All Interested Agencies 1. The hist017 of the Array Ground Forces as a command was prepared during the course of the war and completed immediately thereafter. The studies prepared in Headquarters Anny Ground Forces,'were written "by professional historians, three of whom served as commissioned officers, and one as a civilian. The histories of the subordinate commands were prepared by historical officers, who except iii Second Army, acted as such in addition to other duties. 2. From, the first, the histoiy was designed primarily for the Army. Its object is to give an account of what was done from the point of view of the command preparing the histoiy, including a candid, and factual account of difficulties, mistakes recognized as such, the means by which, in the opinion of those concerned, they might have been avoided, the measures used to overcome them, and the effectiveness of such measures. The histoiy is not intended to be laudatory. 3. The history of the Army Ground Forces is composed of monographs on the subjects selected, and of two volumes in which an overall history is presented. A separate volume is devoted to the activities of each of the major subordinate commands. k. In order that the studies may be made available to interested agencies at the earliest possible date, they are being reproduced and distributed in manuscript foim. As such they must be regarded as drafts, subject to final editing tod revision. Persons finding errors of fact or important amissions are encouraged to communicate with the Commanding General, Army Ground Forces, Attention: Historical Section, in order that corrections may be made prior to publication in printed form by the War Department. BY COMMAND OF GENERAL DEVERS: (J. L. TARE Colonel, AGD 1 Incl: Acting Ground Adj General Historical Study CONTENTS Page Prefatory Note Mission 1 Selection of Candidates 2 Operation of Officer Candidate Schools 3 Academic Training 3 Training in Leadership 6 Selection for Commissions 7 Selection and Training of Tactical Officers 11 Factors Eelated to Success and Failure in OC School 13 AGCT Scores 15 Age 16 Source 16 Principal Changes in the Officer Candidate Program 18 Palliatives for Low Quality in 19^2 18 Preparatory Schools 19 The Turnback Policy 20 Eevision of the OCS Program in 19^3 22 Extension of the OCS Course to Seventeen Weeks} 19^3 23 Proposals for a Six-Month OCS Course 2k Consolidation of the Armored, Cavalry, and Tank Destroyer Officer Candidate Schools. 26 RESTRICTED TABLES Table I: Annual Output of AGS' Officers Candidate Schools Table II: Graduation and Failure of Officer Candidates, Antiaircraft Artillery School Table HI: Graduation and Failure of Officer Candidates, Armored School Table IV: Graduation and Failure of Officer Candidates, Cavalry School Table Y: Graduation and Failure of Officer Candidates, Coast Artillery School Table YI: Graduation and Failure of Officer Candidates, Field Artillery School Table YII: Graduation and Failure of Gffioer Candidates, Infantry School Table YIII: Graduation and Failure of Officer Candidates, Tank Destroyer School RESTRICTED RESTRICTED PREFATORY NOTE Stud^r No. 6, The Procurement and Branch Distribution of Officers, deals with quantitative aspects of the officer problem. In particular^ that study discusses the control and admini strati on of officer candidate schools; the determination of school capacities and quotas, and the adjustment of OCS operations to requirements for offi­ cers at home and overseas. The question of the training of officer candidates in the special service schools, excluded from Study No, 6, is discussed in the following page el In particular, this section describes the sytem used in training and selecting officer candidates in the service schools and traces the major changes in the system after the assumption of control over officer candidate training "by Army Ground Forces in March 19^2. To separate a discussion of training from a discussion of personnel procurement and assignment is artificial, since the nature and success of any training program is largely determined by the number and quality of men to whom it is administered. Espe­ cially is this the case in officer candidate training. For, as will be shown in great­ er detail below, the officer candidate schools occupied a peculiar position in being at once agencies of training and agencies of selection. They were an integral part of the officer procurement system, not merely institutions to which officers were sent for training after being commissioned. Having a vital role to perform in the selection process, the officer candidate schools were more sensitive than other elements of the school gystem to changes in the quality of students resulting from fluctuations in de­ mand. When demand was high, as in 19^2 and 19W, quotas could be filled only by lower­ ing standards and admitting candidates of Inferior quality. In the schools closer ob­ servation and more careful screening became necessary to prevent the commissioning of incompetent officers. Yet the schools were under great pressure during such periods to commission as many men as possible. Training suffered, failures increased, and the number of men turned back to repeat all or part of the course mounted. "When demand for officers was low, as In 19^1 and 19*1-3, more rigorous selection could be practiced in units. Men sent to officer candidate schools were consequently of higher quality. At the same time pressure to maintain a large volume of output was relaxed. The schools were then freer to concentrate on training, the increased success of which was attested by higiher graduation rates during these periods. In view of the role of officer candidate schools in the officer procurement system it is not surprising that most of the developments in the training system traced on pp. 35-53 below had their origin and justification in episodes in the history of officer procurement. The present study should be read in connection with Study No. 6. This study was prepared in the Historical Section, Headquarters, Army Ground Forces, by Major William R. Eeast, in consultation with the officers cited in the notes. RESTRICTED RESTRICTED TRAINING OF OFFICER CANDIDATES IN AGF SPECIAL SERVICE SCHOOLS MibBion The mission of officer candidate schools of the Army Ground Forces (AGE) was to convert enlisted men into combat officers to meet mobilization requirements for com­ missioned personnel in the company grades, in excess of the supply available in the Regular Army and the reserve components. In courses conducted at each AGF service school, originally twelve or thirteen and later seventeen weeks long, enlisted men and warrant officers were trained in the "basic duties of a junior officer of the arm, screened for the possession of leadership and other traits desirable in an officer, and, if qualified, commissioned second lieutenants in the Army of the United States. •Officer candidate training was a mobilization procedure. Production of officers in peacetime was limited to the Military Academy, the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (RGTC), and extension courses for Regular Army enlisted men at service schools. From these sources it was anticipated that enough officers would be available to meet the requirements of the first 120 days of mobilization. Thereafter, additions to officer strength were to come -- except for civilian specialists commissioned directly in tt numbers -- from the officer candidate schools (OCS), whose operations were to have b§- gun on M-Day. Plans for officer candidate training were embodied in Mobilization Regulations and in mobilization plans drawn up before 19^0.1 Mobilization plans in 1938, for ex­ ample, called for 225,000 officers during the first year of mobilization, to command an Army of 3,000,000. Of these officers, 128,000 — Regular, Reserve, and National Guard — were expected to be available on M-Day. The officer candidate schools were to supply the remainder, training monthly increments varying from 25,000 to 1,500 during the first nine months and none thereafter.^ Mobilization of the Army after 1940 did not proceed according to the time scheme envisaged in prewar plans. Initially mobilization was much slower, after December 19^1 much faster and more complete, than had been anticipated. As a result, requirements for officers in excess of those who could be supplied from the Regular Army the reserve components did not appear until quite late. Large-scale officer candidate training was deferred, as a consequence, until the beginning of 19^2, by which time the Army had attained a strength of approximately 1,600,000 men.3 By 1 January 19^2 only 1,389 officer candidates had been commissioned in the ground arms; during 19^2 mobilization was very much more rapid and extensive than had been anticipated, and the officer candidate schools were forced to expand to unforeseen heights, producing 55,000 officers in the ground arms alone. By the end of 19^3, with mobilization virtually complete, while approximately 215,000 Regular, Reserve, Na­ tional Guard officers were on duty in the Army as a whole, and about 100,0.00'had been commissioned directly from civilian life, nearly 300,000 had been commissioned at offi­ cer candidate schools.4 Thus the officer candidate schools came ultimately to perform their Intended function of filling the gap between officer requirements and supply available from other sources.