Army Officer Commercial

[Kiwigrunt]

Hmmm, these numbers so far are looking a bit embarrassing for us Kiwi’s. Now for the Navy it’s easy to explain; more than half of both of our boats are so small they only need a captain. And for the RNZAF, the three maintenance crew take turns at setting the clock back on the hecilopter (I’m too little to say a big word like flopticopter)

On a slightly more serious note now,

Davidbfpo:

According to figures given to the UK parliament and cited in: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files...ish_dorman.pdf (Pg.s 15 & 16)

In 2008

Army 1 : 7.1
Navy 1 : 5.1
AirF 1 : 4.4

In 2008 for all three armed services using consolidation of officer ranks to army equivalents, for an all ranks total of 187,100; we have 140 major generals, 350 brigadiers, 1180 colonels, 4070 lieut.colonels, 9600 majors, 11900 captains and 4460 lieut / 2nd lieut. A total of 31,700 officers for 155,300 other ranks.

I was about to state that UK and US are quite similar with the UK army being a nice average between US army and USMC…….until I discovered that the rates that Davidbfpo indicated are not accurate. (I’m a numbers-man more than a words-man. I was checking your link to find the ranks-layout for army only.) You divided the total by the number of officers, instead of the number of ORs by the number of officers. So it should read:

Army 1 : 6.2
Navy 1 : 4.1
RAF 1 : 3.5

In the NZ numbers, officer cadets are included. If we exclude them for the army, the ratio would be 1 : 5.5 (not stating this as a pissing contest, just that, well, I am a numbers-man and sometimes analy so)



Cavguy:

So about 16 officers or so on staff. Five line companies equals another 25-30 or so. (CO CDR, XO, 3-4 PL's) So the low 40's for a BN of officers is standard, and has been for awhile.

You really see staffs growing at BCT levels right now, due to the shift to the BCT of many functions once handled by divisions. You'd be shocked what a BCT has to synchronize on today's battlefield, and it takes a fair number of experienced personnel. BN hasn't grown that much.

Even 82redleg’s brigade numbers show a ratio of around 1 : 11, which is still a far cry from the army average of around 1 : 5/6.
I believe arty (for instance) are a bit higher on their officer ratios, other than that, I think this still applies:

So the 'excess' is to be found where Cavguy and Ken have identified them, above and to the peripherals of the combat units.

Another thing I have noticed, in both UK and NZ army, is the relatively low number of lieutenants. That makes the bottom of the pyramid a lot narrower than I would ever have guessed it.


And for those interested or with nothing better to do (like me at the moment), visit youtube for a NZ army recruitment clip, a NZ army promo (note the reflective safety belt a quarter of the way through) and a NZSAS promo.

[82redleg]

Field Artillery is slightly higher than IN in the BCTs- a 44 man FA platoon has a PL and an FDO- a 39 man rifle platoon has only the PL. This evens out when you add the staff, med, CSS, etc.

Fires BDEs FA BNs will have a higher ratio (because MLRS sections are smaller), but they don't have FDOs, either. I'll have to find an MTOE and run the #s.

Echelons above BDE will have a higher ratio, as they are composed of HQs and staffs. Also, the Army sends alot more officers to school longer than enlisted, so, for example, approximately 20% of MAJs are at FT Leavenworth for CGSC/SAMS at any given time. There is also OBC, CCC and War College- the only enlisted comparison is the Sergeant Major Academy, which I think is 600+/- in any given class. All these #s will skew the data.

I used the FKSM 71-8, dated APR 2008. It doesn't exactly match the BCT I came from, or probably any other BCTs MTOE- it allegedly reflects the base TOE. I'd be interested in which you think I missed.

[Cavguy]

Field Artillery is slightly higher than IN in the BCTs- a 44 man FA platoon has a PL and an FDO- a 39 man rifle platoon has only the PL. This evens out when you add the staff, med, CSS, etc.

Fires BDEs FA BNs will have a higher ratio (because MLRS sections are smaller), but they don't have FDOs, either. I'll have to find an MTOE and run the #s.

Echelons above BDE will have a higher ratio, as they are composed of HQs and staffs. Also, the Army sends alot more officers to school longer than enlisted, so, for example, approximately 20% of MAJs are at FT Leavenworth for CGSC/SAMS at any given time. There is also OBC, CCC and War College- the only enlisted comparison is the Sergeant Major Academy, which I think is 600+/- in any given class. All these #s will skew the data.

I used the FKSM 71-8, dated APR 2008. It doesn't exactly match the BCT I came from, or probably any other BCTs MTOE- it allegedly reflects the base TOE. I'd be interested in which you think I missed.

Yeah, MTOE's are rarely standard. Nice use of the statistic from the welcoming remarks the other day ...

My above on officer numbers for a line BN were an off the top of the head calculation, but +/- 10 or so. Most of the lowering of the overall army ratio comes from higher HQ and logistics staffs that in many cases support the joint force. (i.e. theater logistics, or HQs such as MNF-I, which are mostly Army) Whether they are overmanned or needed is an ongoing debate and favorite subject for Ken.

[JarodParker]

And for those interested or with nothing better to do (like me at the moment), visit youtube for a NZ army recruitment clip, a NZ army promo (note the reflective safety belt a quarter of the way through) and a NZSAS promo.

The first recruitment video was mehhh. The second video would've been uber awesome had it been shorter (less chow hall footage) and had better music. The last video, all I'm going to say is "Creed! Really?"

Thanks for sharing.

[Kiwigrunt]

The first recruitment video was mehhh. The second video would've been uber awesome had it been shorter (less chow hall footage) and had better music. The last video, all I'm going to say is "Creed! Really?"

Thanks for sharing.

On the first, concur. And that's one of the better adds on TV. Maybe that's why we're having trouble recruiting!
On the second, concur again, but hey, they had to show a few nice looking chicks
On the third, maybe my English but not sure whether that's pos or neg.

And I think I found out why the RNZAF have so many officers. They are all busy coming up with better TV adds