Lantern Swinger

I am back being a AS/Lt and in NE

can i give up all my in-unit jobs again. cant wait to tell the CO

wonder who JOTO is now
Greenie said:
I think its for checking officers seniority dates aswell.
The pecking order :lol: :lol:
Slightly more important than that (although as you well know the pecking order is important) the seniority list does denote 'military command rank' very important for court martials and war crimes tribunals.

Equally every Captains Standing Orders will list the ships officers in the order of 'Sea Command' ie the pecking order for driving the ship/boat, in other words who takes over if the CO snuffs it and normally there you would see a confirmed S/Lt of the seaman/warfare branch senior to officers of any other branch irrespective of rank.

Basically where legal responsibility comes into play the pecking order has to be well defined as I expect AAC would agree.



Lantern Swinger
The Navy List is fine for Warships, but as most reservists will never be able to take command of a ship (i will never have the time to get a bridge watchkeeping certificate and keep in date) for the reservists it is not as important any more.

We go in and complete a professional job, one which the navy cannot or dont wont to complete.

For me personally the chance of making commander or above are extremely remote so is my name and rank being wrong that important.

Anyway i had far more fun being an aslt, so long may it continue :D
Captain_Jacks said:
We go in and complete a professional job, one which the navy cannot or dont wont to complete.
Hmmmm, what a great attitude. Onto other matters, I agree that the Navy List is full of errors this year, as was the (supposedly wonderful T200 commemorative edition) last year.

As well as the RNR ones already pointed out, the 2006 edition has missed out almost 100 junior Lt Cdrs entirely from the whole publication - in both the alphabetical lists and seniority rankings (somewhat galling when the international definition of a warship includes the fact that the officers have to be on the Navy List of their country!) - and without correction could give a misleading impression of certain officers' status in the Naval Service! I am also informed that they have missed the '2002' and '2005' Divisions from the Navy List Seniority of Commanders. Do these officers no longer exist on the official records of the future?

The iditor (sic) has also stopped printing CO's names with ships, which is a terrible shame. Furthermore, the ship classes in Section 5 are all wrong (ALBION and BULWARK are definitely not "FEARLESS class", SABRE and SCIMITAR are not ARCHER P2000 class, the 16 P2000s are ARCHER class however, but are described as ATTACKER class, ECHO and ENTERPRISE are listed as being in the "MISC" class, the SSBNs are VANGUARD class, not "Trident Class" - and the crews are listed individually bizarrely - and DUMBARTON CASTLE has no Class listed at all. Is there no proofreading done at all?

Last year's Obituary section inexcusably missed out all the deaths in service of the previous 12 months and reprinted the 2002 Navy List version - ie those deaths of 2001/2. This was a hugely insensitive omission, not corrected this year, that I know caused some upset amongst certain quarters.

All in all, the many mistakes, omissions and lack of attention to detail make the 2006 Navy List an embarrassing and shoddy pot mess of a publication, especially considering that it is THE publication of official record concerning officers in the RN and RM. Furthermore, the missing out of COs therein is therefore a pointless shortsighted decision destined to hinder the future research of historians.

This book needs an official erratum published forthwith, including the 2004/5 obituaries missed from the 2005 edition, and the Editor (name and address on the back page of the publication) should hang his head in shame at producing such an abysmal effort. Will anyone join me in this campaign? After all, it is THE publication of record of the RN (not just personnel, but also ships and senior officers). It is the equivalent of the London Gazette, and I am appalled by its shoddiness. I'm going to repeat this post on the Naval History forum, btw....


Thanks for this.

They missed out the fact I transferred branches in 2000 but managed to give me the RD from 2003!

I will put pen to paper


War Hero
sgtpepperband asked

Why the need for a published Navy List anyway?
letthecatoutofthebag beat me to it. It is indeed a requirement of LAC.
The errors that grip me are those with 'membership' of professional institutions that don't exist any more, whether the fault of the individual for not filling in a return or the compilers. I'm not including the IIE and IEE in that. It's too soon to expect the amalgamation to be reflected in List entries.

Latest Threads

New Posts