Anyone else think this is not being managed too well? The Infantry intends to sack 140 officers next June. These will be from years of birth 1960 to 1974 (why does the Army still work on years of birth, when all new contracts are based on length of service?). However, 1970 - 74 is heavily over strength, so this will be where the axe falls heaviest. Conveniently, this is also the area that offers the best financial saving (under the rules, a 1970 major made redundant will get approximately Â£110,000 lump sum and an immediate pension of around Â£10,000 per year. A 1974 major will receive a lump sum of approximately Â£35,000.) At the same time, officers on short service commissions in 1970 - 74 are being told they will not be extended (so will leave in the next few years) and those on Intermediate Regular Commissions are being told they will not be converted (so will also leave). On top of all that, Officers in the brackets are being encouraged to look at alternative employment just in case. I wonder how many will look and suddenly realise that life outside the Army is not so bad and will leave with their pensions regardless of redundancy? The Infantry produces many of the best officers in the Army, head and shoulders above the corps, yet they are facing the biggest chop. Less capable officers will remain and fill important jobs. So, in outline: Who was responsible for allowing officer manning to get in such a mess? (some years are 30% over manned!). Would it not be more sensible to look at officer manning as a whole, not just Infantry? Is this not just a badly managed knee jerk reaction in a similar vein to Options for Change - cuts from which the Army never recovered? Just to really cheer me up, the whole thing shifts to soldiers next year - I perish to think how many we will lose then!