New Army recruitment campaign

A lot of uninformed generalisms on LE officers being thrown around now we have moved on from the petty pedantism of rank nomenclature ^~
Hardly petty. Johnyboy was wrong (again)
 
Well, if so, so has the RAF which disagrees with all your bluster.

RAF Regt Gunners. The RAF has got it wrong.

And the RAF have got it wrong again. and again .
And again.
and again.
What a bunch of extraordinary twats they've made of themselves, even by their normal standards. Just as well they've got you to put them right.
John, stop it.

your quoting self-service pay scales.

The term 'Gunner' is only used by the artillery as a rank. Not the RAF Regt.

CT is a role rather than rank, sitting at AND I level.

JT isn't a LCpl, not is SAC/SAC(T) (and even some RAF think they are :) ).

Master Aircrew isn't equivalent to WO. The raf don't have WO1 or 2.
 
Is a senior Chief Tech, who has held that "rank" for several years subordinate to a newly-promoted non-tech Flt Sgt? Would the non-tech Flt Sgt remain senior to the CT if he was promoted to Flt Sgt some very short time later? Particularly bearing in mind that the CT would have outranked the non-tech Flt Sgt for some considerable time, possibly for the entire time he had been in thus far, and would also be further up the 7/8 payscale.
The jt and ct were/are like the American E-4 spec (and former spec roles from e-5th to e-8?) They are paid that wage but are not responsible(outside of trade) as that rank.
 
I don't see how or why that would help in any way. Arrse-holes would continue to be arrseholes, but their own standing would just be more blurred.
Not really as the Arrse-holes would be forced to realise that 'seniority' does not increase the size of their genitals and they are simply mere functionaries just as everyone else is. Lets back to the days of 'trained soldier' and WO3s and LSgts across the Army? Any authority required would simply be from their appointment. Face it the Adjt is just the COs runner and a bit of an NCO to the Junior Officers. No need to be another rank, the appointment carries whatever limited authority is required.
 
John, stop it.

your quoting self-service pay scales.

The term 'Gunner' is only used by the artillery as a rank. Not the RAF Regt.

CT is a role rather than rank, sitting at AND I level.

JT isn't a LCpl, not is SAC/SAC(T) (and even some RAF think they are :) ).



You mean he is wrong?
 
Not really as the Arrse-holes would be forced to realise that 'seniority' does not increase the size of their genitals and they are simply mere functionaries just as everyone else is. Lets back to the days of 'trained soldier' and WO3s and LSgts across the Army? Any authority required would simply be from their appointment. Face it the Adjt is just the COs runner and a bit of an NCO to the Junior Officers. No need to be another rank, the appointment carries whatever limited authority is required.
I still don't follow any logic behind your argument.

Why does putting someone in a larger bracket reduce the size of everyone's genitals? Surely it reduces the size for those who would have otherwise been a higher rank (say a capt, who under your scheme has the same size genitals as a 2Lt) and increases them for others (say a major, who has the same size as a col)?

... and if appointments carry the same authoriry as rank, surely all you're doing is changing one 'rank' system for another? A previous rank system where there are 7 OR ranks in the Army, which everyone (well, nearly everyone, obviously excluding some here) can understand and relate to for one where there are dozens if not hundreds of 'ranks', even in an inf bn, which nobody will be able to relate to?

It could work in a staff HQ, but outside that it would seem a recipe for complete confusion.
 
Yes, that’s true. And that’s why there’s a complex organisation of repsonsible people around those with direct command responsibility who also have leadership roles. The other thing to recognise is that an Army commander at any level has near zero executive responsibility; they can’t hire and fire, have no or very limited budgetary responsibility, have a massive support organisation behind them and rarely have to deliver anything measurable.

That’s not a criticism; that’s reality. And that’s why it’s possible to command an organisation of 30 or more at 21.
Yes and I accept that different organisations are different. I think the point about value and responsibility doesn't have to be rank bound and that in some (not all) cases rank depth doesn't help on many levels. Everyone (should and can) add value. Responsibility should be driven by the needs of the organisation and the capacity of the individual to wear it. Recognition and advancement needs to function without promoting people into ranks and remuneration shouldn't be bound to it either. In an ideal world. Just because you don't operate like that and perhaps can't doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be creative around the system.
 
That's where a much flatter hierarchy would be beneficial. If all officer ranks were reduced to say three there would be less opportunity for sneering and nose tapping.

Say:
2Lt - Capt. Junior
Maj - Col Intermediate
Brig and above Senior
Same at my old firm. Essentially junior, officer first grade, second grade, third grade. The CEO was third grade like hundreds of others. But obviously had more third grades reporting to them. But being a second grade officer I could ring up another second grade officer who perhaps had twenty years on me and say hello, 2pi here, I need your help. The fact that they were earning 3 or 4 times my salary was neither here nor there.

The problem with this approach though was two fold. Firstly we made a massive deal about promotion as a major milestone. Which meant you were only ever getting promoted three times and we made a big deal about loyalty and staying at the firm in some cases for your whole life.

So how many other levers were there to recognise people's contribution? Money. And that message wasn't managed very well. Culturally we painted ourselves into a corner. So, not a panacea. But what is eh?
 
So how many other levers were there to recognise people's contribution? Money. And that message wasn't managed very well. Culturally we painted ourselves into a corner. So, not a panacea. But what is eh?
Including the word "Senior" into the job title seems to be fashionable these days, even for administrative roles. In one company there were lots of managers (and very few indians), to act as a sop to the ego, rather than cash, and a few "Head of" because the company didn't want anyone to be a director (owner managed Limited company) and thus see the books. :)
 
Yes and I accept that different organisations are different. I think the point about value and responsibility doesn't have to be rank bound and that in some (not all) cases rank depth doesn't help on many levels. Everyone (should and can) add value. Responsibility should be driven by the needs of the organisation and the capacity of the individual to wear it. Recognition and advancement needs to function without promoting people into ranks and remuneration shouldn't be bound to it either. In an ideal world. Just because you don't operate like that and perhaps can't doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be creative around the system.
Unfortunately being 'creative' doesn't always work and backfires as frequenntly as it hits the target - at least in the Army's case.

Two simple examples.

In the drive to be 'One Army' a lot of trade pay went. Great for making everybody 'equal' but totally counter-productive for retaining and rewarding those who'd chosen a technical career and needed long and demanding courses and training. The only way to recognise and reward that was with promotion, which meant they'd either be commanding tps instead of doing their trade, or doing their trade but not commanding the troops their promotion and rank indicated they should be.

Non-grad officer cadets were given the same pay scales and promotion as grads, rather than starting behind them and 'catching up' after 9 years. Great for parity and the non-grads, who had a 50% pay rise as OCdts and accelerated promotion, but a kick in the teeth for grads who were not only three years behind their peers of the same age who'd not gone to uni but considerably worse off as they still had to repay their student loans which could take them years.
 
Bob, what would eliminating ranks achieve? If you take a bde in the field as an example, what would improve?
A Brigade HQ is about as flat at the Army (Services?) gets. A 1* Commander and a team of SO2s and 3s in which the COS has primacy by virtue of appointment, not rank.

I don’t think the issue of too many ranks is wider; the need to promote every 2-3 years to get to the top drives self-serving behaviours. It also drives structures; in order to create command jobs, RSM jobs etc, REME, for example, organised into a regimental structure which no-one really thinks delivers best effect.

Also, the short promotion cycle means people stay too briefly in post. The old adage that postings are managed in the interests of the service first and the interests of the individual a close second misses the key point that neither of those is in the interests of the efficiency of the unit.

You could pick other issues; IMHO the horizontal fault line that is the officer / NCO delineation creates issues and encourages lower centres that aren’t necessarily beneficial and can be toxic.

Compared with other armies there are too many, often ineffective, junior officers and there is significant duplication of responsibilities between officer and SNCO. The company level of command is Maj; most others use Capt. Most have SNCOs commanding at platoon level.

The fact is, complex hierarchies mitigate against effective decision making.
 
Including the word "Senior" into the job title seems to be fashionable these days, even for administrative roles. In one company there were lots of managers (and very few indians), to act as a sop to the ego, rather than cash, and a few "Head of" because the company didn't want anyone to be a director (owner managed Limited company) and thus see the books. :)
Bloody senior made-up-job-title. Drives me bonkers. What do you do? I'm in charge of my own underpants!
 
Also, the short promotion cycle means people stay too briefly in post. The old adage that postings are managed in the interests of the service first and the interests of the individual a close second misses the key point that neither of those is in the interests of the efficiency of the unit.
Never a truer word spoken. It does have the advantage of moving lunatics on every two years. I don't think that I could ever describe any unit that I've been at as efficient, primarily because of the 2 year posting cycle. I've been a plenty of units where we've made efficiencies without asking if we're doing what we need to do effectively in the first place.
 
A Brigade HQ is about as flat at the Army (Services?) gets. A 1* Commander and a team of SO2s and 3s in which the COS has primacy by virtue of appointment, not rank.

I don’t think the issue of too many ranks is wider; the need to promote every 2-3 years to get to the top drives self-serving behaviours. It also drives structures; in order to create command jobs, RSM jobs etc, REME, for example, organised into a regimental structure which no-one really thinks delivers best effect.

Also, the short promotion cycle means people stay too briefly in post. The old adage that postings are managed in the interests of the service first and the interests of the individual a close second misses the key point that neither of those is in the interests of the efficiency of the unit.

You could pick other issues; IMHO the horizontal fault line that is the officer / NCO delineation creates issues and encourages lower centres that aren’t necessarily beneficial and can be toxic.

Compared with other armies there are too many, often ineffective, junior officers and there is significant duplication of responsibilities between officer and SNCO. The company level of command is Maj; most others use Capt. Most have SNCOs commanding at platoon level.

The fact is, complex hierarchies mitigate against effective decision making.
Disagree, yet again, with just about everything there as being factually incorrect across the Army, however true it may be of your own experience.
Brigade HQ is about as flat at the Army (Services?) gets. A 1* Commander and a team of SO2s and 3s in which the COS has primacy by virtue of appointment, not rank.
While true, relatively speaking, of the Bde HQ, you've overlooked all the rest of the Bde.
don’t think the issue of too many ranks is wider; the need to promote every 2-3 years to get to the top drives self-serving behaviours.
No more than it would if you had to promote every 4-5 years or every 6-7. You'd still need the right ticks in the right boxes every year based on the exact same self-serving behaviours. That's a fault of the reporting system, not the number of ranks.
It also drives structures; in order to create command jobs, RSM jobs etc, REME, for example, organised into a regimental structure.
Having less ranks wouldn't affect that in the slightest - they're unconnected. That's a fault of following rigid organisations, nothing, again, to do with the number of ranks.
Also, the short promotion cycle means people stay too briefly in post. The old adage that postings are managed in the interests of the service first and the interests of the individual a close second misses the key point that neither of those is in the interests of the efficiency of the unit.
Again, nothing to do with the number of ranks. You yourself gave the example of an RE WO2 who did at least three tours in that rank without even being an SSM. A major could remain a major for over twenty years, but he's still likely to be moved on every two. A clear fault of the system, but again nothing to do with the number of ranks.
You could pick other issues; IMHO the horizontal fault line that is the officer / NCO delineation creates issues and encourages lower centres that aren’t necessarily beneficial and can be toxic.
Agreed, @Bob, but what possible connection does that have with the number of ranks? They're two separate issues.
Compared with other armies there are too many, often ineffective, junior officers and there is significant duplication of responsibilities between officer and SNCO. The company level of command is Maj; most others use Capt. Most have SNCOs commanding at platoon level.
Compared with which, @Bob? I've served with and in plenty and I can't recall any where that applied (nb. I've never served in Germany, which is one of the few I can think of where it does).
The fact is, complex hierarchies mitigate against effective decision making.
Possibly true, but having less ranks doesn't make the hierarchies any less complex - it quite possibly makes them more complex as they're then based on appointments that have to be identified rather than ranks.

Sorry, @Bob, there have to be better arguments than those.

Never a truer word spoken. It does have the advantage of moving lunatics on every two years. I don't think that I could ever describe any unit that I've been at as efficient, primarily because of the 2 year posting cycle. I've been a plenty of units where we've made efficiencies without asking if we're doing what we need to do effectively in the first place.
Agreed 100%, @K44. I'd have very happily stayed in the vast majority of my posts, if not all, without being promoted and I certainly wasn't promoted on every posting nor are the vast majority of those posted - in fact, in hindsight, every promotion I had on posting was either local or acting, and every substantive promotion I had was while in post!

It's a massive fault of a flawed system, but it's got nothing to do with the number of ranks.
 
John, stop it.

your quoting self-service pay scales.

The term 'Gunner' is only used by the artillery as a rank. Not the RAF Regt.

CT is a role rather than rank, sitting at AND I level.

JT isn't a LCpl, not is SAC/SAC(T) (and even some RAF think they are :) ).

Master Aircrew isn't equivalent to WO. The raf don't have WO1 or 2.
The last JT left 4 years ago, never promoted the fat c'nt,, they used to try and pull rank on us in the scoff queue in SEE, did i mention fat c'nts?
 
A war is always good for recruitment.

We seem to be 'out of date' for one with the french.
Capt. Jack Aubrey : Do you want to drive on the right down Piccadilly?

Crew : No!

Capt. Jack Aubrey : Want to call that dapper, debonair, Macron, your president?

Crew : No!

Capt. Jack Aubrey : You want your children to rap "Démocrates D Le Crime ?"

Crew : NO!

Perhaps you are right, but the Victory is the warship least likely to break down after leaving its moorings.
 
Last edited:
That must have been the second to last JT as I saw one in MPA in 2017. It was like finding a rare but useless bird. There were witnesses before you call me out.
Maybe the useless fat c'unt got extended
 
Disagree, yet again, with just about everything there as being factually incorrect across the Army, however true it may be of your own experience.
While true, relatively speaking, of the Bde HQ, you've overlooked all the rest of the Bde.
No more than it would if you had to promote every 4-5 years or every 6-7. You'd still need the right ticks in the right boxes every year based on the exact same self-serving behaviours. That's a fault of the reporting system, not the number of ranks.
Having less ranks wouldn't affect that in the slightest - they're unconnected. That's a fault of following rigid organisations, nothing, again, to do with the number of ranks.
Again, nothing to do with the number of ranks. You yourself gave the example of an RE WO2 who did at least three tours in that rank without even being an SSM. A major could remain a major for over twenty years, but he's still likely to be moved on every two. A clear fault of the system, but again nothing to do with the number of ranks.
Agreed, @Bob, but what possible connection does that have with the number of ranks? They're two separate issues.
Compared with which, @Bob? I've served with and in plenty and I can't recall any where that applied (nb. I've never served in Germany, which is one of the few I can think of where it does).
Possibly true, but having less ranks doesn't make the hierarchies any less complex - it quite possibly makes them more complex as they're then based on appointments that have to be identified rather than ranks.

Sorry, @Bob, there have to be better arguments than those.

Agreed 100%, @K44. I'd have very happily stayed in the vast majority of my posts, if not all, without being promoted and I certainly wasn't promoted on every posting nor are the vast majority of those posted - in fact, in hindsight, every promotion I had on posting was either local or acting, and every substantive promotion I had was while in post!

It's a massive fault of a flawed system, but it's got nothing to do with the number of ranks.
Where to start. The US, German, French, Russian, Israeli, Chinese, Iraqi and Turkish Armies all have Captain as company commanders. We used to.

I was quite specific when I said Brigade HQs are flat. I didn’t suggest that the Brigade is flat. If i could be bothered, I’d explore the relationship between the COS and the BG COs but it’s not going to add to my argument.

The rest of my thinking is based on the problems with organisational hierarchies. You could read any number of manegment theory textbooks which describe the problems with traditional hierarchies, namely that communication flows down too to bottom it rarely flows up. Engagement suffers, collaboration rarely occurs. Hierarchies are riddle with bureaucracy, people rely on process and rules rather than initiative, there is little focus on employee experience. Behaviours become driven by the needs of the structure not the needs of the organisation. Management focuses on supervising the work of those below them rather than delivering the wider needs of the organisation.

Vision and ideas get stuck somewhere in the hierarchy; the top end strategic vision doesn’t get communicated down and people don’t get engaged with it because somewhere there’s a reactionary block. Good ideas never get to the top or the credit gets stolen on the way up.

The Bett report was highly challenging to many vested interests at the time, but O reckon he was proved right. The Army’s multi-layered hierarchies have been found out and sometimes dislocated in a rapidly changing world.
 
Well, @Bob, addressing the points raised rather than ignoring them and replacing them with your own would probably be a good start.
The US, German, French, Russian, Israeli, Chinese, Iraqi and Turkish Armies all have Captain as company commanders. We used to.
Yes, @Bob, but all those also Armies take longer to get to Captain than we do, particularly now that all subbies have the accelerated promotion that only grads used to so it's far from unusual now for British Army non-grad Capts to be only 21 or 22, some even younger. That's far from the case in any of those Armies.

Those Armies also have have Coy Comd / OC as a senior Capt's post, so in practice there's actually very little difference to the age or experience - just as there was when the British Army had Capts as OCs. It's wildly misleading to just take one aspect in complete isolation and to ignore the others.

The point I meant to raise about the "other Armies", and it was entirely my fault for not being specific, was that few (rather than "most") have "SNCOs commanding at pl level" any more than the British Army does, certainly in teeth arms although that may not be the case elsewhere. As I mentioned before "across the inf coys I commanded, half the pls were commanded by Sgts or CSgts (7 out of 13). Not just standing in while subbies were away on courses, but PID for two years plus" and that wasn't unusual.
I was quite specific when I said Brigade HQs are flat. I didn’t suggest that the Brigade is flat. If i could be bothered, I’d explore the relationship between the COS and the BG COs but it’s not going to add to my argument.
I know you were, @Bob, but it's a very isolated and far from representative example and not the one that was raised which was that of "a Bde on ops" ... and you're right, exploring that particular relationship wouldn't add anything to your argument and I can't think of anything that would.
The rest of my thinking is based on the problems with organisational hierarchies. You could read any number of manegment theory textbooks which describe the problems with traditional hierarchies, namely that communication flows down too to bottom it rarely flows up. Engagement suffers, collaboration rarely occurs. Hierarchies are riddle with bureaucracy, people rely on process and rules rather than initiative, there is little focus on employee experience. Behaviours become driven by the needs of the structure not the needs of the organisation. Management focuses on supervising the work of those below them rather than delivering the wider needs of the organisation.

Vision and ideas get stuck in the hierarchy; the top end strategic vision doesn’t get communicated down and people don’t get engaged with it because somewhere there’s a reactionary block. Good ideas never get to the top or the credit gets stolen on the way up.
I could, @Bob, but it'd be a bit of a waste of time. Those sort of "theory textbooks" are usually written by those with zero actual experience of management and less management ability - if they had either, they'd be busy managing large firms and corporations themselves rather than standing on the sidelines and pointing out what those who are actually doing the job are doing wrong.
The Bett report was highly challenging to many vested interests at the time, but O reckon he was proved right. The Army’s multi-layered hierarchies have been found out and sometimes dislocated in a rapidly changing world.
@Bob, it's impossible for him to have been "proved right" as his recommendations on rank structures were never implemented beyond the removal of 5* rank (which was because of the reduced size of the services and their not being used by our allies, not for any other reasons). Probably beyond the scope of this thread / diversion, but those of his recommendations that have been implemented, either at the time or more recently, have all proven to be disasters for the Army and retention: most notably changes to the pension scheme (apart from basing it on service rather than just the last two years), changes to the pay structure which effectively ended trade pay and differentials, PAYD (as implemented), and increasing accommodation and rental charges.

If those are him being "proved right" I hate to think how things would be if he'd been "proved wrong".

I agree entirely with the issues you raise about communication, but there's nothing to indicate these would be solved by removing ranks than there is that they'd be solved by wearing your underwear inside out.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top