Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,193
Yes exactly, theres far too many of them. We don't have an empire anymore.
Not that I'm expecting it to happen theres far too many top brass with influential friends in parliament.
Army brass to be slashed.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
Yes exactly, theres far too many of them. We don't have an empire anymore.
Not that I'm expecting it to happen theres far too many top brass with influential friends in parliament.
It would be nice if we could see the future and know in 10, 20, 50 years time we'd never face aggression from another large entity. I hope we never ever use our nuclear capabilities but I'm quite happy to contribute towards a "large stick" that I hope we never have to use or threaten to use but goes a long way to both ensuring and insuring the relative peace and stability of our way of life whether global stability is rough or smooth.
And I prefer it this way, rather than us looking back at some point in the previous 50 years and wishing we had a nuclear deterrent.
It would be good to see how future threats evolve. Maybe at the moment a major threat is from a dirty bomb, but it won't necessarily always be.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
Really 300?
I'd have thought less is more with top brass, the whole point is to have one man who knows all of the big picture so he can plan accordingly, having many just means debates and communication issues.
Quality rather than quantity, although at least these days lesser ranks have more power (read; flexibility) to do what needs to be done.
I can see the argument for a smaller armed forces, especially if we stop with the joining of random wars. Small army but very well trained and equipped is how i'd do it (not saying though that we arent already, but theres always improvement to be made).
Trident is a different story, no we dont need it, but neither do the russians, americans french or whoever else has nuclear ability, power is so hard to put down though.
I'd have thought less is more with top brass, the whole point is to have one man who knows all of the big picture so he can plan accordingly, having many just means debates and communication issues.
Quality rather than quantity, although at least these days lesser ranks have more power (read; flexibility) to do what needs to be done.
I can see the argument for a smaller armed forces, especially if we stop with the joining of random wars. Small army but very well trained and equipped is how i'd do it (not saying though that we arent already, but theres always improvement to be made).
Trident is a different story, no we dont need it, but neither do the russians, americans french or whoever else has nuclear ability, power is so hard to put down though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 3,691
500 colonels......... Seems like a lot, if my memory serves me correct I lot of them would have joined as private soldiers. Worked their way up the ranks and rather than discharging them some 22+ years later they keep some in every unit. A wealth of knowledge and experince tied up in a lot of them.
Did I say it had to be 1:1? The rest of my post quite clearly points out the armed forces are not "massive" or "oversized". We have a similar armed force size to many poorer nations and an entirely average sized one compared to countries that are similar to us economically and socially.
Plenty of officers are commissioned from the ranks btw. This isn't a class thing.
We've already hit that point. That's why our expenditure is high compared to our size and why we are being modelled on 1 major or 2 minor conflicts (as per last SDR). We are still missing key capabilities tho, most notably maritime patrol hopefully with a bit of money saved from stopping Afghan deployments this will get fixed next SDR.
Last edited:
There are none currently who have joined as Enlisted and made it to Colonel via Late Entry as the LE scheme restricts their promotion. The Colonels on the list have joined as Officers directly. The highest ex-enlisted at the moment is a Lieutenant Colonel I believe (TA Artillery) but even that is extremely rare, Major is the usual "highest rank" for an ex-ranker.
If British senior ranks do less work then it isn't quite comparing like for like with the US.
Ranks are just notional ideas, the question is how much are they paid compared to US officers as a multiple of lower ranks? Job title inflation can cost nothing.
The work current senior ranks if shared amongst fewer officers will mean increased workload and could result in a demand for higher pay.
If that work is passed down to lower ranks, then they'll want higher pay.
Ranks are just notional ideas, the question is how much are they paid compared to US officers as a multiple of lower ranks? Job title inflation can cost nothing.
The work current senior ranks if shared amongst fewer officers will mean increased workload and could result in a demand for higher pay.
If that work is passed down to lower ranks, then they'll want higher pay.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 1,228
- Location
- In front of my monitor
If there are another set of redundancies then the top should also be reduced accordingly. Common sense really.
After reading this thread I am curious as to how many people with such sweeping opinions have actually been in the Armed forces? Some have raised valid points but many really should just stick to playing Call of Duty!
After reading this thread I am curious as to how many people with such sweeping opinions have actually been in the Armed forces? Some have raised valid points but many really should just stick to playing Call of Duty!
The reason you are posting on these forums is because we had a nuclear option. The Soviet Union massively outweighed NATO in combat aircraft, armour, artillery and men. The only thing that prevented them from rampaging across Europe in the 1970's and 80's was the threat of a strategic nuclear strike.
As to the OP well you need to consider a few things here. Yes, we are top heavy compared to other countries but a lot of other countries have very different setups to us. Moreover, career progression is different. You also need to remember that a modern military requires certain skillsets that require their users to suitably rewarded. Not every military person starts at the bottom of either the non-comissioned and comissioned pathways.
Last edited:
Suspended
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
Except now they have found out that the capability of these forces was poor and the effective forces was below the NATO equivalent. The Soviet doctrine on numbers rather than the quality of those numbers.
Your position seems to be that the UK's setup is so unique that it requires huge numbers of top officers. If ever there was an argument for a root and branch reorganisation of the structure of the armed forces that was it.
Hmm wasn't that the whole point of their numbers. Quantity has a quality of its own etc. The accepted argument is that they could not have been stopped during that period.
I never stated that was my position or whether I thought downsizing the upper echelons was pertinent or necessary. My post addressed the notion that things are not quite as clear as people like to paint them. There is a difference between a professional force and a professional force augmented by reservists forces. There is also a difference between a state controlled professional force and a force augmented by corporate infrastructure. There is also a difference between forces designed for defence, offense and also forces that had had largely humanitarian remits for large proportions of their time.
I am merely saying people are not comparing like with like and don't consider all the angles in their little rants.
I would say there is a certain amount of truth to that unique factor - whether it would weigh against reorganisation is another matter however. Any change to our armed forces needs to be very carefully considered and implemented we do have a relatively unique situation in that numbers wise we punch waaay above our weight due to the training, structure and equipment (for all its faults).
Suspended
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
Until the Wall fell and then they found that the effective numbers were well below the fighting strength due to poor maintenance and 'paper strength' as opposed to actual strength.
These are minor differences when looking at all the other forces around the world. The UK still has a military top echelon geared for another era while the lower ranks have started to move towards our real position in the world.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
All hail God, the mighty overseer, who sees all, knows all and is omnipotent in all things
What would have happened if is a fools mans game. All we know is what did happen, and even that is sketchy thanks to imperfect and biased reporting. You do not know the past as you do not know the future as you barely have a grasp on what is happening now. All speculation is fiction until proven, and even then proof does not justify your method. It is possible to stumble upon the right conclusion, with wrong working.
Last edited:
You cut off my point that a larger army represents the opportunity cost of having a better health, education and welfare system. That or higher taxes to pay for the army and big bits of metal, which mainly serves to give hard ons to those that way inclined.
Always a balance point and unfortunately in this country too many people have been insulated by the last ~30 years of relative peace and stability and believe the world to be a much more civilised and stable place than it really is hence its not unusual for people not to see the potential problems in cutting our military capabilities to the bone and redirecting the money into healthcare, etc. often under the delusion of "if we aren't going around the world aggressing other people and/or presenting a threat in general we'll be perfectly safe".
Last edited:
Mate we are in NATO, we are in Europe, we love America long time and let them deep into our back passages/have their airbases. And anyway once Russia's done smashing up Eastern Europe and Germany, hopefully we'll have got ready. That or what good is a conventional army for the real threat of extremism and ISIS type terrorism which will be defeated by intelligent use of concentrated power, not tonnes of soldiers.