More Generals Than Ships!

#1
#2
Talking of CGS, he has been writing to the Times about how he has been effectively reducing generals.
Top-heavy British Army halves number of generals
Top-heavy British Army halves number of generals

Can't see the full letter (paywall), however given the timeline on the excerpt showing, it seems he might be claiming some of the 2012 departures/voluntary resignations as being part of a greater master plan.
At least six 'talented' generals quit Army over defence cuts
Not a single one of them is quoted as leaving due to defence cuts.
 
#3
Talking of CGS, he has been writing to the Times about how he has been effectively reducing generals.
Top-heavy British Army halves number of generals
Top-heavy British Army halves number of generals

Can't see the full letter (paywall), however given the timeline on the excerpt showing, it seems he might be claiming some of the 2012 departures/voluntary resignations as being part of a greater master plan.
At least six 'talented' generals quit Army over defence cuts
A bit more here;

Army Chief Responds To "Top Heavy" Claims
 
#4
The CGS's letter in full;

Sir, Like Elisabeth Braw, my thoughts are with the 3,000 soldiers who are deployed on operations this Christmas. I am confident that they are well prepared and equipped for their task. And I entirely support the sentiment that armed forces must focus on talent. Maximising talent has been the guiding principle for the British Army as it strives to become a modern employer that provides opportunity for anyone with talent regardless of background.

Braw is also right to observe that the present nature of warfare places a premium on the quality of junior leadership. And it follows that the armed forces must achieve the right numeric balance between senior and junior leadership — not least to create the most propitious conditions for the latter to succeed. In seeking to achieve the right balance, the total number of starred officers (ie, brigadiers and generals) working under my command has been reduced by nearly 40 per cent, from 141 to 85 during the past five years or so. Over the same period the proportion of generals to troops has improved to about 1 to 2,400, and the number of two-star headquarters has reduced from nine to five, with the size of the remaining five reducing by 60 per cent. We are proud of the quality of our junior leadership, the training and education it receives and the command philosophy that enables it.

General Sir Nick Carter

Chief of the General Staff

From Here;
Defence in the Media: Friday 29 December - Defence in the media
 
#5

I thought his plan was to get a black, Muslim gay, female, single mother in a wheelchair to general rank at the expense of anything else connected to defence?
Nick_PC_Carter said:
Maximising talent has been the guiding principle for the British Army as it strives to become a modern employer that provides opportunity for anyone with talent regardless of background.
I wasnt far wrong.
 
#6
Sir, Like Elisabeth Braw, my thoughts are with the 3,000 soldiers who are deployed on operations this Christmas. I am confident that they are well prepared and equipped for their task. And I entirely support the sentiment that armed forces must focus on talent. Maximising talent has been the guiding principle for the British Army as it strives to become a modern employer that provides opportunity for anyone with talent regardless of background.

Braw is also right to observe that the present nature of warfare places a premium on the quality of junior leadership. And it follows that the armed forces must achieve the right numeric balance between senior and junior leadership — not least to create the most propitious conditions for the latter to succeed. In seeking to achieve the right balance, the total number of starred officers (ie, brigadiers and generals) working under my command has been reduced by nearly 40 per cent, from 141 to 85 during the past five years or so. Over the same period the proportion of generals to troops has improved to about 1 to 2,400, and the number of two-star headquarters has reduced from nine to five, with the size of the remaining five reducing by 60 per cent. We are proud of the quality of our junior leadership, the training and education it receives and the command philosophy that enables it.

General Sir Nick Carter

Chief of the General Staff
I thought this letter was worth its own thread especially as it is so spectacularly disingenuous

Of course Nick Carter is correct that the Army FLC (i.e 'under my command') has been reduced due to the creation of entities like JFC. The suggestion that the number of senior Army officers has actually changed in any meaningful way is simply not accurate and he deserves a good shoeing for trying to suggest that it has. The actual numbers are as follows:

ranks.jpg


Source data is the monthly statistics that the MoD now produces (details are here). Of note is that this information is now buried in a massive spreadsheet rather than up front in the main report which is the way it used to be done. Anyone would think they're trying to conceal it!
 
#9
Why do we need 500 Colonels for 70,000 troops?
Of course we do, how else do you monitor sandwich eating and the issue of wafer biscuits?

Besides someone has to keep moving the goal posts around on equipment specifications and procurement, plus of course select the PR bods for Army recruiting terminology.
 
#10
#11
I thought this letter was worth its own thread especially as it is so spectacularly disengenous

Of course Nick Carter is correct that the Army FLC (i.e 'under my command') has been reduced due to the creation of entities like JFC. The suggestion that the number of senior Army officers has actually changed in any meaningful way is simply not accurate and he deserves a good shoeing for trying to suggest that it has. The actual numbers are as follows:

View attachment 316389

Source data is the monthly statistics that the MoD now produces (details are here). Of note is that this information is now buried in a massive spreadsheet rather than up front in the main report which is the way it used to be done. Anyone would think they're trying to conceal it!
Who are the other two full generals? CGS and DSACEUR obvs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#12
I thought this letter was worth its own thread especially as it is so spectacularly disengenous

Of course Nick Carter is correct that the Army FLC (i.e 'under my command') has been reduced due to the creation of entities like JFC. The suggestion that the number of senior Army officers has actually changed in any meaningful way is simply not accurate and he deserves a good shoeing for trying to suggest that it has. The actual numbers are as follows:

View attachment 316389

Source data is the monthly statistics that the MoD now produces (details are here). Of note is that this information is now buried in a massive spreadsheet rather than up front in the main report which is the way it used to be done. Anyone would think they're trying to conceal it!
So, a politician caught in a blatant lie to the public and/or parliament is always called on, and expected to, resign. I take it the good CGS will totally blank that?
 
#14
I sometimes think the problem is linking rank names to types of formations. People go 'blimey we've got 200 Captains, but only X ships in the Navy, something is wrong'. If we retitled things so people didnt have a rank, but a grade, then maybe people would be less het up if they saw the RN had 200 OF5 level staff.

Perhaps we could call Colonels etc B2s from now on to make things easier?
 
#16
I sometimes think the problem is linking rank names to types of formations. People go 'blimey we've got 200 Captains, but only X ships in the Navy, something is wrong'. If we retitled things so people didnt have a rank, but a grade, then maybe people would be less het up if they saw the RN had 200 OF5 level staff.

Perhaps we could call Colonels etc B2s from now on to make things easier?
It's an easy win isn't it to highlight the amount of VSOs, and makes readable news to those that don't realise that these is more to the services than front line units.
 
#18
Sorry @jim30 but your argument that we need more senior officers to allow everyone to get promoted is flawed ....... although makes for good click bait.

In my experience (left at 40 as OF4 psc(j) with staff tours in both MoD Main Building and AHQ) the lack of decision making freedom, stifling processes, requirement to constantly brief upwards and blatant senior officer politicing are what make middle ranking officers leave. The way to change this is to make our structures leaner.

Empowered people who feel they make a difference are more likely to stay. They're also the ones that you want to stay.....

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#19

Similar threads

New Posts

Top