Sherman (VIII): Individual replacement is a better personnel system than rotation

It turns
out that William T. Sherman, one of the best American
generals ever, was no fan of the practice of rotation that the Army follows
today.

Rather,
like retired Cmd. Sgt. Maj. Robert Rush, he favored the World War II
method of sending in new men to seasoned units. Sherman wrote that, "I believe
that five hundred new men added to an old and experienced regiment were more
valuable than a thousand men in the form of a new regiment, for the former by
association with good, experienced captains, lieutenants and non-commissioned
officers, soon became veterans, whereas the latter were generally unavailable
for a year."

Sherman
felt so strongly about this he took time out from the Vicksburg campaign to
write a lengthy letter to his commander, General Grant, about this policy, with
a request that his views be forwarded to President Lincoln.

I think
Sherman and Rush are right, for commanders as well as the enlisted troops. When
you have one-year rotations of units, no one "owns" a war. They get in and get
out. One way to do it differently would be to have units assigned to rotate in
and out every couple of years, perhaps with commanders from brigade up doing
four-year stints to provide continuity. To do that, you'd need to give them
months off every year, and so they'd need very strong XOs.

So it
would be difficult. The personnel people will say too hard. But perhaps better
to do difficult and win, than do easy and lose?