Too many Army Officers,not enough soldiers!

#2
So then why are there gapped Officer posts?
 
#3
Well as far as I can see, the moral of this tale is you f*ck you're boys around at your peril if you want to retain them.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Planted story by MOD to shut up senior officer complaints about manning? Countering the recent stories about officers leaving? What kind and specialisation are these officers?
 
#5
Maybe its all the Major's at Shrivenham doing arrse courses?
 
#6
Bouillabaisse said:
Planted story by MOD to shut up senior officer complaints about manning? Countering the recent stories about officers leaving? What kind and specialisation are these officers?
Quite likely: note the piece has been 'written'by the political corr, so a lobby job, and not 'entrusted' to the defence correspondent.
 
#7
Kirkup said:
The surfeit in Army officers may be corrected in years to come as the Army struggles to recruit enough future commanders.

Earlier this month, the Daily Telegraph revealed that for the past three years the military academy at Sandhurst has been unable to attract enough recruits and has been short by about 20 out of the 250 cadets needed to keep up numbers each term.
So that's all right, then.
As long as the bottom line total adds up, there isn't a problem. Quality analysis, Mr Kirkup — you sure earned your pay with that one.

Durch.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
Trackpen said:
Bouillabaisse said:
Planted story by MOD to shut up senior officer complaints about manning? Countering the recent stories about officers leaving? What kind and specialisation are these officers?
Quite likely: note the piece has been 'written'by the political corr, so a lobby job, and not 'entrusted' to the defence correspondent.
Do you think the politicians are saying: Listen up officers, there's too many of you, and if you brief against us, we simply get rid of you and call it a cull of the surplus.
 
#9
A quick cull of LEs should straighten that one out.
 
#10
Fail to see how official figures can be a planted story? I have a feeling that the annual defence statistics piece is due out anytime now, so likely that they saw that. Also worth noting that the drop in manpower vis a vis 2005 is almost certainly due to planned reductions in the size of the RAF announced in 2004 (the value of such cuts is a different matter entirely though!). You can spin these figures anyway you chose.
 
#11
jim30 said:
Fail to see how official figures can be a planted story? se.
Nothing personal 'jim30', and not on the thread subject, but I can believe anything disreputable or dubious emanating from this disgraced and dishonest government.
 
#12
I agree with jim30. The Telegraph article was a straight write-up of TSP04 - UK Armed Forces Quarterly Manning Report. The Telegraph often carries defence-related stories by staff members other than their excellent defence correspondent, who wrote the recent "Army suffering from officer shortfall" story. James Kirkup, who wrote today's piece, might well have been criticised here if he had failed to mention the Sandhurst shortfall at the same time as the reported excess of officers overall.
 
#13
Parsing the article I get the impression that the army does not have too many officers. Rather, there is a greater shortfall in ORs than commissioned ranks and both are undermanned.

IMO the problem lies in retention. You can recruit as many people as you like but new recruits =/= to seasoned experienced men.

Make the forces attractive to stay in and they will be attractive to join. That means military hospitals, good terms and conditions and rewarding people with experience.

Military service makes large demands (especially now), it should return large rewards. Example: My job ATM is far easier than my army job, yet it pays a damned sight more.
 
#14
Peturbed, go to the link in Hackle's post it shows clearly a surplus of 900 officers a figure that is fairly stable over the last two years.
 
#15
western said:
Peturbed, go to the link in Hackle's post it shows clearly a surplus of 900 officers a figure that is fairly stable over the last two years.
I have been and looked. I see nothing written clearly on that link. Can you explain in simple words how and why we have too many officers? Damned if I can see it. IMO the army is undermanned both in ORs and officers, it is just that the % shortage of O-Ranks is more desperate than commissioned ranks.

Correct me if I am wrong, but please don't do so by linking to vague (probably deliberately so) written sites.
 
#16
Perterbed, it is there, the table has been mangled after pasting here but you get the feel: (columns show periods from 2005 - 2008)

Officers
Requirement 13,860 13,350 13,350 13,480 13,480 13,480 13,480 13,460
Strength (2) 14,020 14,150 14,260 p 14,370 p 14,300 p 14,110 p 14,210 p 14,370 p
Surplus/Deficit 170 800 900 p 880 p 820 p 630 p 730 p 900

The interesting question is, how accurate is the requirement? It doesn't for example include the OCE. Also it masks shortfalls in certain cap badges/trades/age groups etc. The 'bottom line' figures might make a good headline but they certainly don't paint an accurate picture of the situation on the ground.
 
#17
LISpace said:
Perterbed, it is there, the table has been mangled after pasting here but you get the feel: (columns show periods from 2005 - 2008)

Officers
Requirement 13,860 13,350 13,350 13,480 13,480 13,480 13,480 13,460
Strength (2) 14,020 14,150 14,260 p 14,370 p 14,300 p 14,110 p 14,210 p 14,370 p
Surplus/Deficit 170 800 900 p 880 p 820 p 630 p 730 p 900

The interesting question is, how accurate is the requirement? It doesn't for example include the OCE. Also it masks shortfalls in certain cap badges/trades/age groups etc. The 'bottom line' figures might make a good headline but they certainly don't paint an accurate picture of the situation on the ground.
What is the surplus/deficit compared to and how does it show it? Is the surplus compared to O-R strengths as they are or as they should be? How can you tell/how does it explain?

Do you understand those tables? I don't. They look like (black adder mode) gobledegooch (/black adder mode) to me.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#19
western said:
A quick cull of LEs should straighten that one out.
Not just LE's though. A quick trawl amongst the RMP would highlight the excess in both DE & LE. Just how many administrators does one cap-badge need?
 
#20
Must remember to tell MCM Div that we have a surplus of Officers, so can they please post in the other 2 x Officers that should be working alongside me so I don't need to work stupid hours in between continual Op Tours.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads