5 Comments

If wonder how much variance there is in the relationships between the official professional bulletins and the association journals? For instance, although I am not sure how formal the relationship is between ARMOR and Cavalry and Armor Journal, ARMOR seems to publish the original content, but then publish almost exclusively though online *.PDF. Cavalry and Armor Journal then mostly republishes ARMOR's content, adds a bunch of advertising, and distributes physical copies to members of the association.

Expand full comment

This helps the Army, which I've heard has cut back on its printing budgets substantially over the years. However, the newest digital versions on DVIDS are not easy to find. This goes back to the premise about accessibility. Branch journals will wither and drown in the information age if they are not easily accessible. I'd say joining the associations would help, but leaders are not supposed to promote them given their NFE status.

Expand full comment

Thanks Gary. I'm mostly not able to peer behind the paywalls, so your insight is important. If the associations are mostly repackaging the MCoE's Armor content, I'm less concerned.

Together, we can make the Army's professional content more accessible!

Expand full comment

Thanks, Zachary, for a great commentary. What struck me in the table is the large number of communities of practice that don't have a professional bulletin listed. Signal and Medical immediately popped to mind, but some of the functional areas like Foreign Area Officer and Force Management would seem like good candidates. And then there are others like installation management and garrison command that could benefit -- sometimes professional bulletins have started but were cancelled because the community's leadership did not see such publications as value added.

Expand full comment

This is a great point. Recruiter is an obvious one to bring back, but many communities could benefit.

Expand full comment