More top brass than top equipment?

#4
its from the daily wail, it would likely contain more truth if it was from the sun or some other red rag,

and given that its all based on reports that were made 3 years ago, based on information that was probably already 2 years out of date (if not far more) wiht some recent headline grabbers chucked in for good measure

and given the recent spate of screws of the world esq reporting (publish some lies and watch the cash roll in then claim in court when your sued you only made £20 so a larger fine would be damaging to your buisness) i suspect threes very few people that would even read the article nevermind the paper.
 
#5
Didn't we have a similar story from the same paper earlier this year along the lines of more Brigadiers and above than actual Units to command?
 
#6
This is clearly a an unacceptable situation that must be immediately rectified and the budget increased to mange.




Every Senior Officer should have at least one tank, and in certain situations, maybe two.


...
 
#7
the thing they dont sem to ever take into account when making sensational stories are wastage figures, for instance a colonel will get promoted to brig, have a few weeks leave after getting rid of his last command show up and spend a few weeks taking over his new role thus allowing that person to be promoted or enter final leave,
its never as cut n dried as the media makes it out to be,

i mean i dont doubt that every year theres more people promoted to take over from those leaving and employed at there new rank ahead of when there the defacto person in the role.

i dont doubt that every now and then we end up with more CPL's than there are sections, based on the need ot promote in front of loss (either out of service or loss on promotion.

its all just headline grabbing crap designed to force the image of a military thats poorly managed, it might even bee correct in some circumstances but as with everything its got some spin on it and isnt givign the whole picture or indeed by there own story even accurate
 
#9
Don't know how true this is but where there's smoke there's fire.
Only for people who believe every story in a scandal rag.
 
#10
er how any generals got made redundant I know theirs a "need" for general level blokes for diplomatic reasons etc but might just be worth looking at the numbers
 
#11
Speaking as an individual who was rank was "Rifleman", so, I'm not particularly gung ho about the welfare of senior ranks, surely, it's not as straight forward as that? Senior officers have roles other than command positions within the forces. Take for example the role of military attaches in embassy's etc around the world. These are positions that for diplomatic and security reasons need to be staffed by senior ranks from colonel right up to the rank of general in some countries I would have thought? Of course thats just one example and I'm sure there are many others. Where there are excess bodies genuinely on permanent standby or something similar, it needs to be examined but a comparison between the number of tanks or attack helicopters and certain ranks is in my view highly misleading and makes me wonder if the author has a hidden agenda?
 
#13
makes me wonder if the author has a hidden agenda?
Does anyone ever read the articles before they become confused?

A FORMER British spy has revealed the Army now has more Generals than main battle tanks.
Senior Military Intelligence officer Frank Ledwidge ...................................................................................................Ledwidge said: "Our priorities are hugely skewed." He stressed that the British Army is "over-burdened and over staffed with senior ranks.................................................................The latest figures are revealed in his new book Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan — and based on official statistics
 
#14
and oh my god would you look at that


hear let me post the text from the wail;
The Army has more top brass than battle tanks, alarming statistics have revealed.

There are 256 brigadiers and generals but just 200 Challenger II tanks, according to the figures uncovered by a former senior military intelligence officer.


Read more: British Army has more generals than tanks and is stuffed with penpushers | Mail Online

and from the sun ;
A spokesman said: "As we restructure for the future, we are reducing the number of senior officers — which currently stands at about 230. Modern armies require more than just tanks. Operations require a range of armoured vehicles."
Ledwidge claims roughly 200 of our 350 Challenger 2 main battle tanks are in service — with the others in storage. At a peak during World War Two Britain produced more than 30,000 tanks.

read what i wrote read both articles and tell me which one actualy has substance based on truth and which one uses hearsay and out of date numbers

if your going to call me on something get the semantics correct at least, proving my point for me that the daily wail used incorrect outof date "facts" for its article as oposed to the sun which at least printed it as claims and quoted up to date figures
and calling me full of shit based on a statement then proving me correct wiht your rebuttle just makes you look like your attempting to pick a fight over nothing > a bit like screaming your right and trying ot bludgeon someone for it, you still lokk like a tool for doing it
 
#15
Actually both articles are complete horse manure, as the MOD response to the suns article makes clear:

"Today's Sun runs a piece saying the British Army has more generals than tanks. This is wrong; we do not have more generals than tanks. There are currently 59 serving generals in the Army and we have 337 tanks. More than 100 of these are operational with the rest kept in a state of readiness to be used when required. Irrespective of that, modern armies require more than just tanks and the Army has more than 4,000 armoured vehicles, many of which are deployed on operations."

More to the point, Ledwidge is not and has not been a spy (since when have DI or MI been spies?).
 
#16
and oh my god would you look at that


hear let me post the text from the wail;
The Army has more top brass than battle tanks, alarming statistics have revealed.

There are 256 brigadiers and generals but just 200 Challenger II tanks, according to the figures uncovered by a former senior military intelligence officer.


Read more: British Army has more generals than tanks and is stuffed with penpushers | Mail Online

and from the sun ;
A spokesman said: "As we restructure for the future, we are reducing the number of senior officers — which currently stands at about 230. Modern armies require more than just tanks. Operations require a range of armoured vehicles."
Ledwidge claims roughly 200 of our 350 Challenger 2 main battle tanks are in service — with the others in storage. At a peak during World War Two Britain produced more than 30,000 tanks.

read what i wrote read both articles and tell me which one actualy has substance based on truth and which one uses hearsay and out of date numbers

if your going to call me on something get the semantics correct at least
???? Do both newspapers not give the exact same numbers? The main difference seems to that the Sun also quotes from one of their own earlier reports. And the MoD quote, which you imply is exclusive to The Sun, is word for word the same in both newspapers.
 
#17
Actually both articles are complete horse manure, as the MOD response to the suns article makes clear:

"Today's Sun runs a piece saying the British Army has more generals than tanks. This is wrong; we do not have more generals than tanks. There are currently 59 serving generals in the Army and we have 337 tanks. More than 100 of these are operational with the rest kept in a state of readiness to be used when required. Irrespective of that, modern armies require more than just tanks and the Army has more than 4,000 armoured vehicles, many of which are deployed on operations."

More to the point, Ledwidge is not and has not been a spy (since when have DI or MI been spies?).
i did say contain more truth if printed in the sun, who clealry point out there information is based on claims placed in a book by an ex employee, i suspect there quote of the spokesman for the MoD is based around all 1 star appointment holders across its entirety and not as is hinted at just wihtin the army, ant it probably includes CS members who hold the 1star equivilent posts to boost it up to the sensationalist 200+ figure
 
#18
???? Do both newspapers not give the exact same numbers? The main difference seems to that the Sun also quotes from one of their own earlier reports. And the MoD quote, which you imply is exclusive to The Sun, is word for word the same in both newspapers.
clearly 256 and 230 are the same in your brain but in the real world no
 
#19
The Generals and tanks argument is an irrelevance. If we were a purely infantry based Army with no tanks we would still need Generals.

What is more relevant is the comparison of Generals to Divisions or Brigadiers to Brigades etc. You would find similar differences at all command ranks - Majors to Squadron/Company for example.

But the reall killer is Colonel. There will always be more Colonels than Colonels' commands because, fundamentally, Colonel is not a command rank in the British Army (Other countries may differ). We can do away with the lot of them!
 
#20
Actually both articles are complete horse manure, as the MOD response to the suns article makes clear:

"Today's Sun runs a piece saying the British Army has more generals than tanks. This is wrong; we do not have more generals than tanks. There are currently 59 serving generals in the Army and we have 337 tanks. More than 100 of these are operational with the rest kept in a state of readiness to be used when required. Irrespective of that, modern armies require more than just tanks and the Army has more than 4,000 armoured vehicles, many of which are deployed on operations."

More to the point, Ledwidge is not and has not been a spy (since when have DI or MI been spies?).
I don't fully accept the premise of the articles, but actually Ledwidge's figures in the the Mail article seem fair enough:

There are 256 brigadiers and generals but just 200 Challenger II tanks, according to the figures uncovered by a former senior military intelligence officer....

Mr Ledwidge’s figures were gleaned from official statistics and published in his new book Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He claims only around 200 of the UK’s force of 350 Challenger II main battle tanks are in service, with the others in storage.

Read more: British Army has more generals than tanks and is stuffed with penpushers | Mail Online
As for someone like this being described in The Sun as a "former spy", I bet that's never happened before. ;)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top