ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Stonker** · 30-06-2012, 21:07

Originally Posted by bokkatankie

As to TESCO, profit warning, fucked up Japan, fucked up USA, shareholders asking for someone to held to account, got fucked off at the high port.

Couldn't agree more - but look at the electoral turnout in the west. Pollies (and therefore sybils) have nothing to fear.

In this country, having seen the previous administration cut the goolies off the Crown's power to hold them to account, the current incumbents are busy plotting the further erosion of the powers of the Upper House.

And nobody in this country is cross.

Actually, if the thread on which I was posting in the aftermath of the Jubilee boatfest is anything to go by, a sizeable chunk of our population are living in a cloud-cuckoo-land in which Liz of Hanover is has control over the hoi-polloi 'elected' by a tiny, very politically active proportion of a British population which is demonstrably indifferent to its liberties being infringed, and its economy trashed, as long as it doesn't have to get off its arrse and work.

The evidence seems to point in a quite different direction, but we do not seem to care.

**RedCoat2009** · 01-07-2012, 22:57

Deputy Commander III (US) Corps will not be a gardening leave job. Fort Hood troop strength of about 50% of the British Army.

**RorkesD** · 05-07-2012, 11:09

Originally Posted by Joe_Private

To be fair, RAMC Lt Colonels do a job of work.

Its a field hospital and call me stupid, but do not get many Ptes that have done 5 years med school plus JHO then off to Surgeons exams...

**Charm_City** · 05-07-2012, 11:18

Originally Posted by RedCoat2009

Deputy Commander III (US) Corps will not be a gardening leave job. Fort Hood troop strength of about 50% of the British Army.

Possibly why, according to their website, there is also a US Dep Comd - but only a 1*, as was the Canuk Dep Comd who our man replaced.

**warwalker** · 10-07-2012, 02:22

WTFAI

**ex-Scaley** · 11-08-2012, 11:17

I've tried reading through this thread which has meandered along basically ignoring the original point. How many Generals do we have compared to the number of Regiments / Battalions ? Or even compared to the number of Divisions and Brigades ?

Bottom line - the Army is shrinking, how big is the General Staff and do we really need that many high ranking officers given the cuts to the Forces ?

As a former squaddie and a taxpayer being screwed to the wall for tax I feel we have the right to ask the question !

And no - I'm not an advocate of Defence Cuts but when the ranks are being cut and redundancies seem to be such a hot topic on these forums why are we not hearing of reductions to the numbers of Colonels and above ?

**jim30** · 12-08-2012, 16:42

Stats I saw recently indicate that the entire pool of manpower, across the entirety of defence, is that roughly 2% of manpower across all three services (inc reserves) is classed as OF5 or above.

**seaweed** · 12-08-2012, 17:20

There seems to be a bit of false equivalence here. If you need a new ship or aeroplane or missile system or armoured vehicle then the expertise and experience needed to procure it or define the training path for it would seem to be the same whether you need 50 or 5000. So you still need a promotion path which will produce people with that expertise and experience. If you de-star the staff you send a powerful message to the middle-ranking that they may be better off leaving. You'll be left with those that plod on because they have no different idea.

That also feeds across into the minds of those who want to go sailoring or soldiering, but make value judgments about what comes after, if they dig out to climb what may prove to be a melting iceberg.

So it's not quite as simple as generals per tank or admirals per ship.

**ex-Scaley** · 12-08-2012, 21:14

I know things aren't as simple as generals per tank or admirals per ship - I can see that argument but if the "Pyramid" becomes narrower, for want of a better expression, with the base smaller but the tip the same how will that look in the current economic climate.

If the argument is that by reducing the top it encourages the middle ranking management to leave is that not in effect the same as the bankers claiming that reducing bonuses and clamping down on pay will cause a mass exodus of "talent" from the city ?

In light of the current economic crisis how can we possibly justify an ever more "top heavy" rank structure ? Do we really need X number of Generals when the rank and file are being massively reduced ? Maybe some of the posts can be reduced in terms of the rank employed to save money with a smaller increase in pay in recognition of the appointment instead of the rank ?

Surely it's the training, experience and ability that should count - not the rank ?