I wonder.

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by Rumrat, Aug 7, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. So I've just googled "How many ships in the RN" and its told me 109 including RFAs.
    It has told me there are 39,000 serving Full time and 19,000 Reservists.
    Where the fuck do they employ them all especially when I'm constantly informed that there are smaller ships compliments, and they "Multitask more now than in the day.

    In contrast in 1967/68 the official head count of RN service craft was 749, with a total of full time service personnel totalling 100,500.
    I have no figures for reservists, but at that time they were not widely deployed in the fleet as a useful commodity.

    So there were approx 7 times more ships, but only 2.5 more men.
    There were far and away more overseas Naval bases, and we never seemed to be stretched of manpower.
    If the present day figures are right, ships/personnel where are they all.
    If we maintain thousands ashore the obvious question it begets is "Why"?

    The only part of my reckoning that could be questionable is what google has thrown me from Wikipedia, but according to the ones on here in the so called "Know" google is the source of all wisdom and highly quoted at "newbies".

    I only started to look at the ships /men ratio as I was reading an article in the Times about staffing levels, whilst i was in the hospital yesterday.
    I tried nicking the paper to photostat the piece, but got set upon by a rabid nurse. Plus the added frustration of not looking at the date, to buy/locate another issue.
    So back to the question, if most are employed ashore, why not just increase the size of the Army.
    And this is a serious question not a wind up, posted here in the hope of avoiding irate Mods in the grown up channels.
    Oh and yes who mans RFAs now, RN or still Auxiliary staff?
  2. Was the rest of the news in the paper current, Rumrat, or was it an old copy?

    What was the gist of the article?
  3. Sol in lieu of what I've seen posted on RR in the last day or two it must have been current as it was discussing manning levels and the capping/cutback in recruitment's for the armed forces.
  4. OK, let me have a dig around, see what I can fish out.
  5. Thankyou :thumbup:
  6. At the period of time I quoted my facts and figures from 67/68, it interested me to note that the same source lists the Soviet Navy as the following strengths
    Ships (all classes) in service 1380, with a manpower of 45,000.
    I would have got em for you though 8O :roll:

    Edited to correct bollocks dropped.
    45,000 Officers, plus 450,000 men. Oh dear belay the bit about me sorting them, I would have needed at least a couple of oppos :roll:
  7. Should see how many people live up Drake! its sickining

Share This Page