I am told that early in his office as PM, Churchill said he would sack just about every British WW2 general. He also acknowledged there was no one better to replace them, so the generals stayed.

When you get down to it, it’s all about the human material. Recruit a bunch of self-interested dummies, and you’re going to have problems with them ever performing up to standard, let alone ever reaching a state of excellence.

The management issue is also highly variable… You look at the guys who were involved in the SOE during WWII, and you note that the Brit aristos who were doing all that were actually pretty good. Which doesn’t explain the rest of the British Army’s leadership performance in that conflict, but… Yeah.

When it isn’t? It is very, very bad. There isn’t a lot of middle ground when you look at the history of it all. It’s a lot like West Point officers, in my experience–Either they’re the best you’re ever going to work for and around, or they’re the worst. There is no middle ground, with Academy-graduate ring-knockers.