A recent circular letter informed the service that the Secretary of the Navy had approved a policy providing for the annual assignment of a limited number of line officers to the performance of engineering duty only. A brief outline of the approved policy was included in the circular letter, and it stated that for years subsequent to 1931 the board to select such officers would probably meet in October. The information that can be conveyed in a circular letter of this kind is, of necessity, limited, and in this instance it is not believed that the service has a sufficiently clear picture in mind of this approved policy and the underlying reasons for its establishment.
The acts approved August 29, 1916, (39th statute, chapter 417, page 580) and May 11, 1928, (Public No. 365-70th Congress) were enacted to meet a definite service need— the assignment of a limited number of experienced line officers, who have demonstrated special ability and interest in marine engineering, to engineering duty only. It is to this group of officers that the responsibility falls of insuring that the Navy keeps pace with the rapid improvements in engineering design. It is necessary that our limited Navy be first in efficient marine engineering. This requires the best design, the best methods of operation, and the best methods of maintenance. To accomplish this objective it is essential that a nucleus of capable minds specialize in engineering design, research, experimentation, inspection, supervision of operation, and in the administration of new construction and of repair activities.
The variety and complexity of engineering installations on men-of-war have increased many fold within the past few years, and a wider, fuller, and more scientific knowledge and training are required than ever before. The trend will undoubtedly continue. The tonnage and other limitations set by the Washington conference, and those that will be the outcome of the London conference, make the problems of design and construction even more difficult. If the United States Navy hopes to design, build, and maintain a better ship on equal tonnage than any foreign navy, it is imperative that the proper number of experienced technical officers of the highest attainments be provided, who, of necessity, must give their entire time and thought to their chosen field of work.
Congress passed the laws that were required to meet this service need. The urgent need that existed in 1916 was taken care of by the selection of a number of officers, during the following three years, for assignment to engineering duty only. During subsequent years no assignments were made until the year 1928, when three were designated.
During the intervening period since the enactment of the law of August 29, 1916, no clear-cut policy has been established and no definite procedure adopted governing the future assignment of officers for engineering duty only. After a careful analysis of the present situation it is apparent that the establishment of a policy and the adoption of a procedure for putting it into effect should no longer be delayed.
In general, the assignment of officers designated for engineering duty only should be to duties requiring special knowledge and experience in engineering. At sea their services are required on the staffs of high commands. Ashore, they are essential for design and other activities in the Bureau of Engineering, for industrial activities at navy yards, for inspection and supervision of new construction at shipbuilding plants, for inspection of naval materials (primarily engineering materials) in the more important districts, and for other special assignments where advanced technical knowledge and an aptitude for research and experimentation are requisite qualifications.
The officers who have and will continue to complete the postgraduate courses in engineering furnish the personnel needed for the efficient operation of the machinery afloat, including engineer officers of the capital ships. They also fill important junior engineering billets ashore in the industrial department at navy yards, in the Bureau of Engineering, as assistants to inspectors of machinery and inspectors of naval material, as assistants at the engineering experiment station, fuel oil testing plant, research laboratory (Bellevue), etc.
On May 29, 1930, the Secretary of the Navy, appointed a board to study and submit recommendations looking to the formulation of a policy regarding officers designated for the performance of engineering duty only.
The report of this board, as approved, is as follows:
1. The board, in compliance with reference (a), has made a study in regard to the needs of the several technical bureaus for engineering specialists. It has held hearings and has had access to correspondence on the subject. It has carefully considered recommendations made by the chiefs of Bueaus of Navigation, Ordnance, Engineering, and Aeronautics, and also by other officers who were considered representative of the service viewpoint. Enclosure (A) and the exhibits therewith contain a record of the proceedings of the board and of the information available to the board.
Historical
2. The Roosevelt board of 1897 proposed to remedy the evils and jealousies arising from the existence in the same military unit of two separate bodies of officers with separate, yet closely interrelated, duties, each naturally firm in the belief of its own importance, and sensitive to any fancied slight by the other by making the line officer and the engineer the same man, by throwing both corps into one; or in other words to do away with the engineers as a separate corps by requiring all line officers hereafter to possess that knowledge, both theoretical and practical, of steam engineering, and mechanics, which it is absolutely indispensable for the modern line officer to show.
3. The Roosevelt board recognized that the constructing and designing engineers, the men who plan and build the engines, should be detailed for this purpose from among men who have shown special aptitude for the work.
4. In 1899, by act of Congress, the amalgamation of the line and engineer corps was effected. Since 1899 the responsibility for naval marine engineering has been with the line officers. For a number of years they were capably and loyally assisted by officers of the old engineer corps, all of whom have now passed out of active service.
5. In 1909, in recognition of the need of a better preparation in engineering subjects for a limited number of line officers than that provided by the undergraduate courses at the Naval Academy, the postgraduate school was established and now trains about forty officers a year. The postgraduate school has provided a supply of well-trained officers for the important operating billets afloat and for many of the technical and administrative engineering billets ashore, without impairing their prospective value for command.
6. In addition to these postgraduates who pass on to command afloat, it has been found that naval engineering requires for its efficient development a group of specialists who must pursue the subject closely and continuously in order that certain highly technical positions notably in connection with design research and inspection may be adequately filled. These officers, while of the line, are not trained for command afloat.
7. Recognizing this need of specialists, Congress, in 1916, authorized the selection of officers for engineering duty only, and in the following three years, a total of sixty-five were so selected, and carried as extra numbers in the line, for shore duty only, after reaching the grade of commander, except for certain assignments to staff duty afloat.
8. Because of a reluctance to increase the number of such officers, no further selections were made until 1926 when three were designated.
9. This board is now convened for the purpose of making a study and submitting recommendations looking to the formulation of a policy regarding officers designated for engineering duty only under the provisions of the act of August 29, 1916.
General
10. The board, after a study of the subject, believes that the recommendations of the Roosevelt board to transfer the control of and the responsibility for engineering to the line officers of the Navy were, in principle, sound and that our Navy has fared well in engineering as compared with other navies in the thirty years since the amalgamation of the line and engineer corps. In the World War the comparison was favorable to the engineering of our service.
11. The board believes that the operating billets afloat and most of the technical and administrative positions ashore in engineering, should continue to be filled by line officers of engineering training and ability without impairing their value or their prospects for general line duties in command and flag ranks. Modern fleets are concentrations of mechanical power in all its phases, and their effective employment is so complicated that the efficiency of the Navy as a whole requires that every officer be more expert than the average of his fellows in at least one branch of his profession, be it engineering, navigation, communication, ordnance, gunnery, torpedoes, strategy, tactics, or any other. This he can do without sacrifice to his ability as an all-round officer; this he should be required to do; and for it he should receive credit when being considered for promotion, whether his duty be above deck or below.
12. Line officers of engineering ability and experience should be freely available when on shore duty for engineering assignments, even in command rank, to the same extent that officers of ability and experience in ordnance are, without jeopardizing their prospects of promotion.
13. The Bureau of Engineering finds a reluctance on the part of some qualified officers to repeated engineering assignments after reaching the rank of lieutenant commander, because of a fear of the effect of such duty on their selection for promotion.
14. It is precisely this condition which has led the bureau to recommend a considerable increase in the number of officers for engineering duty only.
15. Limitation of armaments has imposed certain restrictions on numbers and sizes of ships. It does not limit the education or ability of personnel. To produce a maximum of power within a limited displacement requires a higher order of technical ability than heretofore when there was no limit to the size of a naval vessel. There will result lighter machinery, whose operation and maintenance will be more difficult. In the design of this machinery we are in competition with the technical experts of foreign navies. Thus there is now more than ever a need for skilled specialists.
16. The board is strongly of the opinion that future assignments of the group of officers for engineering duty only should be of officers of high ability, who will bring distinction to the group. It has studied the problem of attracting the desirable type of officer to this duty, and believes that building up the prestige of the group by limiting the selections to a small number of outstanding officers by a board of flag officers will give them the enviable honor of belonging to a select group.
17. There is another reason for limiting the number of selections, that is, to prevent a tendency toward the revival of a corps spirit. It is better that there be loyalty to the Navy as a whole rather than a community of self-interest within the Navy. Which of these conditions may develop will depend largely on the degree of sympathetic treatment of the group by the line of the Navy.
18. If the line is to retain control of engineering, it is essential that competent officers be provided in sufficient numbers in the fleet, the bureau, ship yards, navy yards, in research, and on inspection service. Otherwise, this control will inevitably pass to a technical corps.
19. The foregoing discussion applies to officers performing duty under the Bureau of Engineering. In ordnance and in communications there is as yet no problem. One engineering duty only specialist is assigned to each of these branches, and there is no demand for an increase in this number. This is due to the fact that postgraduate trained officers in these specialties have not the reluctance to repeated duty that exists in the case of the postgraduate officers assigned to duty under the Bureau of Engineering.
20. With aeronautics the problem is acute. Aviation is new and its development has been so rapid and so considerable, involving large expenditures, that there is required in connection with the development and production of material specially trained officers of continuous tenure whose tours of duty may not be interrupted by assignment to service afloat. This need has been met by utilizing naval constructors, simply because no other competent officers could be kept continuously on shore. The work of these officers has been well done, but their continued application to aviation tends to separate them from their corps. The board believes that future assignments of specialists for aviation should be made from line officer graduates of the postgraduate school, where they will have received a course in aeronautical engineering comparable to that given the constructors who have thus specialized. A group of line officer specialists similar to the E.D.O.’s should be formed, for work in and under the Bureau of Aeronautics, and this group should be recruited in part from the naval constructors now under that bureau who are willing to transfer to the line.
Recommendations
21. That the total number of officers to be carried on the Navy list designated for engineering duty only for the branches of engineering under the control of the Bureau of Engineering be a maximum of sixty-six.
22. That of these not more than two should be for radio and sound. It is considered that the apportionment as between other branches such as electrical, Diesel, and mechanical engineers should be determined annually according to the needs of the service and the availability of suitable candidates.
23. That the following principles govern the selection of these officers:
(a) Officers designated for this duty shall have shown exceptional aptitude for and knowledge of engineering machinery, its design and operation. They shall be officers of outstanding ability.
(b) The selection of officers for assignment to engineering duty only will, in general, be restricted to officers of the line who have completed one of the postgraduate courses in engineering. Departure from this rule will be made only in special cases and by unanimous approval of the board of selection.
(c) Ordinarily, officers will be eligible for selection when they have attained the grade of lieutenant commander, and, in general, selections will be limited to the senior lieutenant commanders, within one to five years of the date they become eligible for selection to the rank of commander. Departure from these rules may be made in special cases, by unanimous approval of the board of selection.
(d) The selection from any one Naval Academy class is limited to a maximum of seven. It is desirable that the selections be distributed as evenly as practicable among the Naval Academy classes.
(e) The number to be selected annually is limited to a maximum of five.
(f) The board is restricted only by the maximum number set to be selected. If, in the opinion of the board, there is not a sufficient number of satisfactory applicants, a lesser number will be selected.
(g) Selections will be made annually.
24. That the board for the selection of these officers for E.D.O. consist of three flag officers, namely, the chief of the Bureau of Navigation, the chief of the Bureau of Engineering, and a flag officer from the fleet. (Note: The recommendation in par. 24 was modified. As finally approved, the membership of the board shall consist of one rear admiral and four other officers of, or above, the grade of commander, nominated for this duty by the Bureau of Navigation. The personnel of the board shall include at least one representative of the interested technical bureau. The report of the board will be addressed to the Secretary of the Navy, via the interested bureau and the Bureau of Navigation. The approved modification in the complement of the board also applies to the board’s recommendations in pars. 25 and 26.)
25. That in addition to the foregoing, there be not more than two officers for specialist duty under the Bureau of Ordnance, whose status shall be similar to that of the E.D.O.’s. No selection for this duty should be made until requested by that bureau. The board for such selection should include the chief of the Bureau of Ordnance in place of the chief of the Bureau of Engineering.
26. That in addition to the foregoing, for the aeronautical organization, there be established a group of specialists similar in status to the E.D.O.’s, of a total not greater than , including the E.D.O.’s and officers of the corps of naval constructors now in the aeronautical organization. That future selection for this duty be made annually by a board of flag officers consisting of the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, the chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, and a flag officer from the fleet, from line officer postgraduates not below the rank of lieutenant, at the rate of not more than five a year and not more than five from any Naval Academy class. (Note: The number recommended by the board has been omitted as this number was not approved and the number considered necessary has not yet been set.)
27. That any officers of the corps of naval constructors, now in the aeronautical organization or under postgraduate training in aeronautical engineering, who, upon their own request are recommended by the foregoing board for transfer to the line as specialists in aeronautical engineering, be so transferred, under equable conditions, and that the necessary legislation to this end be enacted.
28. That the act approved May 11, 1928, (Public No. 365-70th Congress) be broadened, somewhat as follows, to provide for engineering specialists other than those under the Bureau of Engineering, and to remove any restrictions as to the nature of their duty:
“Officers of the line of the Navy, not below the grade of lieutenant, may, upon application, and with the approval of the Secretary of the Navy, be assigned to engineering duty only, and that when so assigned they shall perform duty as prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy. Provided, That when so assigned they shall retain their places with respect to other line officers in the grades they now or may hereafter occupy, and also the right to succession to command on shore in accordance with their seniority, and shall be promoted as vacancies occur subject to physical examination and to such examination in engineering as the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe: Provided further, That the number of officers so assigned in any one year shall be in accordance with the requirements of the service as determined by the Secretary of the Navy.”
29. That there be freedom of assignment of officers who have been selected for engineering duty only, as regards continuity of duty on shore and service afloat, to the end that their services may be most effectively utilized, and that they may be informed of the needs of the fleet.
30. That postgraduate trained engineers who are not for engineering duty only be encouraged to accept repeated assignments to engineering duty consistent with their development for command afloat, and that to this end boards convened to select line officers for promotion contain at least one member of experience and sympathetic interest in engineering.
31. That the total numbers of specialists recommended in this report and the numbers to be selected annually be considered as subject to revision as the needs of the service may demand.