Posted on Nov 1, 2014
Should military people be encouraged to "Homestead"?
4.5K
8
7
1
1
0
Prior to WWII, "homesteading" was the norm for most enlisted soldiers unless soldiers sought a transfer. The idea was to enhance Regimental effectiveness and cohesion by training together for long periods of time, becoming familiar with an area and terrain, and of course, bonding to each other and to the Regiment. Entire units deployed in WWI; by WWII units were created and expanded and mobilized without long-term training. There are and were many pros and cons to the original Regimental systems for both Officers and NCOs...including cost savings...
Homesteading
Training
Leadership
Esprit de Corps
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
Sounds like a fine system, would allow for those who wish to stay in an area to stay there and not fret random orders. Would save money, and probably make a whole hell of a lot more people happy. Then those (like myself) who want to transfer can try to. I can see the benefits of the current system, expanding experiences and allowing a "big picture" sort of view, but a lot of folks I do work with WANT to stay where they are. So they should let them.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Too much turnover creates turmoil; too much standstill creates stagnation. However one can achieve stability. If properly managed stability creates certainty. Certainty can nurture expertise and create centers of excellence. It can be done, yet it is very difficult to manage though without creating cliques...however civilians do it all the time. Want a promotion or want to lead? You must usually be willing to move. Think of the money saved on PCS...there are many pros and cons. I believe there are more pros thans cons when the totality of wasteful spending is considered. There of course would have to be high standards and greater powers of inspection to maintain those standards. Competition for command would increase in some aspects, and yet in others not much would change.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I have always been a supporter of a Regimental Affliation System, for the reasons SGM (Join to see) mentions above. I also believe that their should assignments to other units for a period of time and then return to the Regiment. This time away allows for a new look at operations and concepts that could be brought back and improve functions and systems in the Home Organization. No unit does everything well or totally right.
I have also seen NCOs who homesteaded in units (82nd ABN) for many years and then when reassigned to units in USAREUR. They had difficulty adapting from the 18hr N-hour sequense to wheels up as the Army's premire Rapid Deployment Force in the 82nd to 1-hour alert notification (larient Advance) and units rolling out the gate in Germany. In my opinion, this re-enforces the concept of periodic rotational assignments for Sr. NCOs and Officers.
A combination of both would benefit the Army and still be a true cost savings to the Army.
I have also seen NCOs who homesteaded in units (82nd ABN) for many years and then when reassigned to units in USAREUR. They had difficulty adapting from the 18hr N-hour sequense to wheels up as the Army's premire Rapid Deployment Force in the 82nd to 1-hour alert notification (larient Advance) and units rolling out the gate in Germany. In my opinion, this re-enforces the concept of periodic rotational assignments for Sr. NCOs and Officers.
A combination of both would benefit the Army and still be a true cost savings to the Army.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
1SG Mcpherson, the Expeditionary Force concept is a good one, if it could be properly managed--a base of operations with unit deployments and return.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
SGM (Join to see) We probably will return to more tolerance for, maybe even promotion of homesteading. Nothing promotes efficiency like lean times in finance.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google