Obviously, in the beginning we had to go with what we had, officer-wise. After N.Africa, Sicily, etc. we had a number of men who knew how to stay alive and had leadership ability. By 1944, which is what this thread is about, we had many men who had the battle experience and could lead squads. If they can lead squads in combat then there's a good chance they could do ok as a platoon leader. In WW2, leaders at all levels were found wanting. This was no more so than at the 2nd Lt. level. If you think of what's asked of them when they have to orient themselves to a deadly situation, learn their subordinates, figure out how to motivate your men to go forward, and this on your first day on the job, often after coming up to the line at night, there's no wonder why there was failure. My main point is that thrusting green lieutenants , with no frontline experience, into a battle and expecting them to succeed is asinine! No wonder we had a replacement problem. Battlefield vets could be trained quicker and they wouldn't have so much of the overload and stupid BS in his head that the normal 2ndLt would have. Whether this training was done was immaterial. It could be at theater level on down to divisional level. It could be considered the equivalent of a BC. For a short while during the Vietnam War there was a program in many divisions where the new Lt. was allowed to go out with a unit as his orientation and his only job was to keep his head down, watch and learn. Even something like this in 1944 would have been an improvement. Two days in combat is worth any number of days of training.