« Aberdeen Climate Chaos | Main | The Black Sheriff »

If Scrambled Egg Won Wars

MoD faces questions over why the Army majors on generals - Times Online
Although the size of the trained Army has shrunk to about 100,000 soldiers, there are now 255 members with the rank of brigadier or above — or one for every 400 service personnel.
There are now 65 generals in the Army, with 43 major-generals, 17 lieutenant-generals and five four-star generals. In addition there are 190 brigadiers, a one-star rank; 20 more than in 1997.
There are more than 30 admirals in post in the Navy: two four-star admirals, six vice-admirals and 25 rear-admirals.
In the RAF there are 36 top brass: three air chief marshals, nine air marshals and 24 air vice-marshals.

Do they march each other up and down?


How long does it take to train a general? A bit longer than a private, perchance? The late unlamented Herr Hitler took six years from being elected to taking on, and damned near beating, the rest of the world. Think about it.

From whence did the informaion originate? One of the many tens of thousands of bureaucrats who infest the MoD perhaps?

Perhaps the Army might have been a better career after all.

"The late unlamented Herr Hitler took six years from being elected to taking on, and damned near beating, the rest of the world. Think about it."

However, it wasn't Adolf who did the beating. It was his Wehrmacht led by - generals. Without them, his ambitions would have been vapours.

The issue here is not the professional ability of the generals, just the requirement for so many of them.

When you think that a full-up mechanized division of about 25,000 men requires one two-star and four to five one-stars tops!

I remember this being researched a while back. Many of the command posts in NATO, for example, require an equivalent rank. Thus, a US general cannot be seen to be replaced by a British Colonel or Brigadier. Politics, dear boy.
Of course, it would be better if we actually HAD a Navy and Army capable of meeting the roles set out at the last defence review but a certain GB (or one-eyed twat (apologies for the language)) saw to the starvation of resources such that ships now sail without ammunition, sensor or even the weapons themselves. The army is being configured (dangerously so, in my opinion) for a single role at the expense of other, equally vital tasks.

(Curiously enough we share the same intitials)
I'm not sure what his point was, but I may have been a bit too subtle for some about mine, which was that the lead time for a major threat can be considerably less than the time required to meet that threat. World wars (of which there have been about seven so far, but I can't find the book in which I read it) come along every fifty years or so, when two generations have passed from the one that actually fought. We are now in a similar situation to the forces in 1910, when the only wars had been colonial - knobkerries against rifles - and field armies hadn't been deployed in earnest since the Crimean War. Although generals inevitably fight the last war you have to have some at least. Even admitting the horrendous pig's bottom the high commands made of WWI (for which there were many reasons not of their making) the alternative of captains suddenly being promoted to general without the years of study and exercises necessary doesn't bear thinking about.

This is news?

Does nobody read Parkinson any more?

Post a comment