Changing the army - how?

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Ok I'll bite..
It wasn't a fly, nor a dig.

I'm a ling time gone, and yes, I'm ex-Cav. In my regiment individuals who were not tank-park officers did not progress. Which meant understanding issued kit and it's components intimately because the reality was you bend it, you mend it. I fear that WFM may have destroyed this, thereby detaching generalists from practical experience.

Yes, technical stovepipes exist for good reason, but they may be tad (rank) too long. Which means that whoever is proficient enough to get to the top of their stovepipe by 48 needs to be increasingly rewarded to be there, at least until the moment that the next equally proficient expert comes along.

I would expand, bu t excess claret not boosting typing skills. However, I suspect we're singing off the same hymn sheet.....
 
From the perspective of "Warfare Support" (another term oddly used as an insult), that makes perfect sense.

The military output is the be all and end all. But - particularly in the RN - it doesn't happen without the business of Defence behind it, which does genuinely need specialists.

Besides, hasn't Warfare branch painted itself into a specialist corner with PWOs?
Unemployable Seaman Officers you mean?

I’d have a genuinely better chance of promotion to 2* if I’d done 10% of my sea time and been more present in NCHQ instead.
 

bob231

War Hero
Unemployable Seaman Officers you mean?

I’d have a genuinely better chance of promotion to 2* if I’d done 10% of my sea time and been more present in NCHQ instead.
I think that was what I was angling at; I don't know the full details.

Given that we should be primarily about putting ships to sea, this seems a bit strange...

ETA: on topic, does this generalise to the Army? Officers being promoted because they've spent their time in HQs rather than because they've become specialist in their area?
 

Latest Threads

Top