Purge the Generals - US Army LTC calls for sweeping changes from the top down
- Thread starter dapaterson
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
US Navy Some 216 Admirals for some 287 ships??? ???
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Inquisitor said:
So? As has been pointed out in this thread already, not all officers are in the Combat side of the military. There are others who are in the Medical side, the Logistics side, the Maintenance side, etc. For example, the US Surgeon General is a Navy Admiral.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
George Wallace said:
Exactly, a perfect example of the advise from HMS Pinafore "Stay close to your desk, and never go to sea, and soon you could be ruler of the xxxxx navy"
Seems like Gilbert & Sullivan were ahead of their time.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Inquisitor said:
OK. You just earned "Moron Status" in my books. Thanks for coming out for comic relief.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
tomahawk6 said:
Purge the Generals - US Army LTC calls for sweeping changes from the top down
George - I strive for excellence in all I do for your enjoyment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSGWoXDFM64
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,783
- Points
- 1,160
PPCLI Guy said:
On a tangent, the rank 'Brigadier General' itself can be argued to be a form of rank inflation. 'Real' Generals used to start at MGen and, AFAIK, were distinguished by their juniors largely by the fact that they commanded the artillery in the division. 'Brigadiers' were generally seen to be in charge of what could be described as a large BG.
- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
daftandbarmy said:
That is a leftover from the 1920s when someone in the UK complained that there were just too damned many generals in the British Army. The British Army's response, which applied to the Canadian Army, too, was to do away with the rank of Brigadier General and replace them with the rank of Brigadier which was not a general officer rank.
Canadian Army rank badges in First World War
We stuck with brigadiers until the "new" ranks were introduced circa 1968.
Canadian Army rank badges in the Second World War
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,488
- Points
- 1,160
:goodpost:
That's what I like about this forum; not only do you learn new things but every once in a while you learn something new about something old.
The Brigadier issue seemed to also apply to the navy "Admiral" rank where the Brigadier equivalent was (and still is) termed "Commodore" and used to be more an appointment rather than rank (unlike the older air force "Air Commodore" which was a rank but did not bear the "Marshall" designator). With unification all insignia at the O8 level went to the crossed sword/baton/crown indicator.
I would argue it is not rank inflation when what you are doing is re-establishing a rank to what it historically was rather than an interim "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" system where the rank remained but was more politically correct for the time being. The good side of that was that we eventually replaced brigadier-generals with colonels at the brigade level which IMHO was more appropriate considering that all the subordinate units are commanded by lieutenant-colonels. That was proper rank deflation.
Our own problem (and perhaps that of the US) is not so much the ranks of officers in the combat chain of command but the structuring of directorates etc within the administrative headquarters where flag officers often command relatively small numbers of people but their ranks are based more on: the importance of the department (the need to have enough weight on your shoulder to credibly advocate on your department's behalf); the ranks of subordinates; or the rank of their immediate superiors.
Again, IMHO, the only way we (or the US) can properly get a handle on the situation is to either 1) do a full study to determine which positions are over-ranked for the job that the individual or department actually does; or 2) let politicians arbitrarily cut the establishments for the number of each rank allowed and then let the system reshuffle the remaining positions as to need.
In my view 1) will never work. Such studies, done internally are inherently self serving and the bureaucracy will do everything it can to retain the status quo.
While 2) is draconian it is in my view the only system that will result in correcting the problem over time. If politicians merely limit the budget, the bureaucracy will let the cuts fall on the most vulnerable elements (usually lower ranking support trades, equipment, training and when the cuts are really deep, bayonets). It will always find a rationale for maintaining the headquarters strengths and processes. If the political cuts target higher rank establishments and even specific headquarters based programs, the bureaucracy's options are limited and will be more likely to correct headquarter's strength and streamline processes. :2c:
That's what I like about this forum; not only do you learn new things but every once in a while you learn something new about something old.
The Brigadier issue seemed to also apply to the navy "Admiral" rank where the Brigadier equivalent was (and still is) termed "Commodore" and used to be more an appointment rather than rank (unlike the older air force "Air Commodore" which was a rank but did not bear the "Marshall" designator). With unification all insignia at the O8 level went to the crossed sword/baton/crown indicator.
I would argue it is not rank inflation when what you are doing is re-establishing a rank to what it historically was rather than an interim "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" system where the rank remained but was more politically correct for the time being. The good side of that was that we eventually replaced brigadier-generals with colonels at the brigade level which IMHO was more appropriate considering that all the subordinate units are commanded by lieutenant-colonels. That was proper rank deflation.
Our own problem (and perhaps that of the US) is not so much the ranks of officers in the combat chain of command but the structuring of directorates etc within the administrative headquarters where flag officers often command relatively small numbers of people but their ranks are based more on: the importance of the department (the need to have enough weight on your shoulder to credibly advocate on your department's behalf); the ranks of subordinates; or the rank of their immediate superiors.
Again, IMHO, the only way we (or the US) can properly get a handle on the situation is to either 1) do a full study to determine which positions are over-ranked for the job that the individual or department actually does; or 2) let politicians arbitrarily cut the establishments for the number of each rank allowed and then let the system reshuffle the remaining positions as to need.
In my view 1) will never work. Such studies, done internally are inherently self serving and the bureaucracy will do everything it can to retain the status quo.
While 2) is draconian it is in my view the only system that will result in correcting the problem over time. If politicians merely limit the budget, the bureaucracy will let the cuts fall on the most vulnerable elements (usually lower ranking support trades, equipment, training and when the cuts are really deep, bayonets). It will always find a rationale for maintaining the headquarters strengths and processes. If the political cuts target higher rank establishments and even specific headquarters based programs, the bureaucracy's options are limited and will be more likely to correct headquarter's strength and streamline processes. :2c:
SgtShatterproof
Guest
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 130
The US Surgeon General is not in the US Navy, but heads a separate organization called the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. The member of that organization do wear US navy-style uniforms but with the USPHSCC branch insignia.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/about/corps/index.html
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/about/corps/index.html
Similar threads
