By 2025 the entire Regular Army will stand at 73,000 troops and the Army Reserve will stand at 30,000 troops.
Combined, that’s 103,000 troops including 19,400 belonging to the infantry.
The information came to light via the following exchange.
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2021 to Question 83229 on Army: Reorganisation, what estimate he has made of the total planned strength of the infantry by 2024-25.”
James Heappey, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, responded:
“The total planned strength of the infantry by 2025-25 will be c.19,400.”
This is part of already announced ‘Future Soldier’ plans, according to the Ministry of Defence:
“Following on from the Integrated Review and the significant increase in defence spending announced by the Government last year, Future Soldier demonstrates how the Army is modernising to address next-generation threats across the globe. This will be bolstered by an additional investment of £8.6-billion in Army equipment over the next ten years. This will bring the total equipment investment to £41.3-billion for that period.
Creating an Army fit for the future will see some restructuring and reorganisation of units over the next four years, which will be supported by a rebalancing of personnel across the United Kingdom. The Regular Army will stand at 73,000 strong by 2025 and combined with an Army Reserve of 30,000, the British Army will stand at over 100,000.
The proportion of the Army based in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be sustained or increased by 2025, and this will be reinforced by around £3.35-billion from the Defence Estate Optimisation budget and a further £1.2-billion of Army investment in remaining sites.”
19,000 quality trained men and women ready to hit the ground running, seems to fit my idea of a modern army. All we need now are new armoured vehicles built to the same quality to give them the best protection.
new armoured vehicles is the biggest problem facing the army. Challenger 2.5 tracked way behind schedule, Ajax tracked not working and an under armed box on wheels. As far as I can see none of them fit into any strategy so far worked out. We’ve had three different re structurings in the last ten years.
I can’t see a happy ending to the Ajax debacle, only compromise resulting in a melange of vehicles neither of which are what the Army requires? Hence my comment, quality troops poorly support, apart from Boxer maybe? I can’t see any resolution of the Ajax question until the end of this decade, which puts our excellent army at a real disadvantage.
Apart from politics I don’t really understand why we persevere with armour and armoured infantry. The chances of us ever using either in the future in such small numbers must be close to zero.
Totally agree, Geoff. Your point about Ajax being under-armed is interesting – in its recce role (as envisaged originally), it would be considered very well armed with a 40mm stabilised cannon, however in its Strike role (still not very clearly defined) – it is under-armed. I have come up with my own definition of ‘Strike’ – ‘the capability to destroy or severely downgrade enemy AFVs, artillery systems (?) and strongpoints at long range’. I would argue that CVR(T) Striker with its 10 Swingfire missiles could do that from 4,000m away – its capability still has not been replaced. Had a… Read more »
Graham, I think Geoff was referring to Boxer as being an under armed box on wheels.
I was Jack, but having said that Graham has come up with a very good point too. I’ve not heard anything about the use of Swingfire or anything like it. Another hole in capability?
For years Geoff. Swingfire Striker went well over a decade ago, probably longer I forget.
The role of Strike in terms of Ajax is a bit misleading. As per my best understanding of future soldier and other sources it seems the most likely role for the Ajax of the new BCT is to act as a screening force. Which will conduct the forward movement of an advance or rear guard action of a retreat. Its 40mm would be used to harass enemy light armor in a counter recce role and soft skins in a behind the line type ambush. While directing fire from the GMLRS and AS90 for more substantial force. That way it can… Read more »
Thanks Harry. Of course provision of a Screen is a standard task for medium recce from BAOR days and onwards. Then it was employed as a thin shield well forward to allow more time for the covering force and behind them the main defensive forces to prepare their positions. The Screen operated covertly and aimed not be seen, but if seen to selectively engage and delete enemy recce. You mention use of a Screen in support of a friendly force advance or withdrawal (aka retreat) in a contemporary operation. Fine. Equally useful. Also useful for the Qty 23 Joint Fire… Read more »
To be honest the term strike seems to be very haphazardly placed within the structures name. My more cinical mind would suggest the name was kept to tie in with the previously proposed two strike Brigades in th 2015 SDR, which I believed where named such so as to imitate the US striker brigades, as a way to minimise the criticism by claiming that they are continuing their development.
Harry, the US have Stryker brigades, Stryker being the brand name for a US variant of the Canadian LAV III – nothing to do with Strike.
Stryker was the surname of 2 unrelated US junior ranks who were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Sorry I spelt it wrong. But yes that is what I meant. The mechanised brigades of the US, often called Stryker brigades due to their vehicles, are meant for rapid reaction. As the British Strike brigades where original intent for.
Harry, the US have Stryker brigades, Stryker being the brand name for a US variant of the Canadian LAV III – nothing to do with Strike. Stryker was the surname of 2 unrelated US junior ranks who were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Not Striker, Not Strike. In British parlance the RAF first used the word Strike for the amalgamated command (Bomber, Fighter, Coastal). Taken to mean offensive operations. No bad thing for the army to use the word ‘strike’ but seemingly never defined it, AFAIK. I came up with my own definition for my own understanding. No sooner… Read more »
Good point. See my reply to Graham. Thanks
Doh…I mean Jack!
Well if they have a Ajax version with several Spike NLOS or another similar option they will have a 30km range missile.
it all depends how the number compares with our similar sized allies and our potential enemies.
It would be interesting to see the figures for France/Germany/Italy/Spain/Japan/Russia/Iran/israel
Number of people these days means much less than it did even 20 years ago with all those drones coming up
Not really sure that is true, since both sides will have drones and they will nulify each others advantages, resulting in it coming down to raw numbers to take and hold ground. If you imagine battle for goose green with the UK having drones and Argentina not having them and it would be a massive game changer and we wouldn’t have lost as many as we did, since situational awareness was the issue. Flip that and both sides having situational awareness and your back to slogging it out. You could even assume that drones would help the less trained side… Read more »
Some other problems at Goose Green – enemy was numerically stronger, were in prepared positions and dominated the very little high ground (tops of gullys) there was.
Paras had very little artillery support.
Brig Thompson, Comd 3 Cdo Bde, years later admitted that he should have sent in a whole brigade, rather than just a battalion.[Even better would have been to screen off the Goose Green garrison, ignore them, and press on to Stanley, but the PM wanted a ‘quick local victory’ – blast these politicians who have no military knowledge!]
Didn’t the BBC also announce the impending attack too?
Yes, they did, which was shameful, and may well have cost lives.
Yeah, but the point I was trying to make is that drones would have helped a lot with the engagement, if UK only had them, but if both sides had them you would be back to square one. I guess one difference is that there were other units available and if they had seen the size of the Argentinean forces they could have brought them in, but equally Argentina could have reinforced also In the end I think it’s easy to think modern tech reduces the need for boots on the ground, but I kinda think that over simplifies things,… Read more »
I can’t believe he didn’t get the 8 CVRT’s to join in. Their thermal sights and mobile cannons would have helped enormously. Sending a couple of LCVP
with 81mm ammo would also have been a big logistical help.
I agree. Apparently some senior officers had little knowledge of CVR(T) and did not know they exerted less pressure on the peaty boggy soil than a man, so could traverse such terrain wih ease.
Not sure i agree.
First the Army does not have any operational combat drones AFAIK, just some recon ones.
Secondly drones do not necessarily equate to less manpower, since they require regular maintenance and an operator(s).
My 2 cents
Drones don’t do the job infantry does. Infantry closes with the enemy, kills or neutralises enemy infantry, seizes and holds ground.
Not fair to compare with Russia or Iran – we would not fight them alone. Not fair to compare to Israel – they are on a permanant war footing, near enough, and max their numbers by conscripts.
Perfectly valid to compare to other European countries who say they are serious about defence ie the larger NATO countries like France, Germany, Italy.
I estimate our figure is about 14,000 regular Infantry and 5,400 Reserve Army Infantry – but Daniele is the guy with the accurate numbers.
Thanks, Graham.
But only on ORBATs, infrastructure, and organisation.
I could not tell you exactly how many infantry without checking but that figure seems familiar to what I have read in previous ministerial statements.
I don’t agree to say it’s not fair to compare. They are larger countries and have larger budgets but still it’s useful to know how we compare and can be scaled based on what matrix you consider most relevent such as budget/GDP/landmass etc.
GDP is bogus, GDP PPP is less worse.
Hence the what ever value you decide suits your poloitcial aims
Yes but quantity is its own quality as well. Way too low numbers even with the latest wizz bang gadgets.
British armed forces size 2021 | Statista
Sadly, my comments were based on the assumption numbers will remain low.
We hope the figure quoted by SofS is trained manpower ie infanteers who have been through Phase 1 and 2 training. Of course not all of those 19,400 will be capable of being deployed on new ops.
On the armoured vehicles, there are a good number of UOR-procured PM vehicles, which are still relatively new.
However we both know that the story on AFVs in general, which includes IFVs for the Infantry, is less good.
You are kidding Maurice. Yes? Less, less, less is more. Do yo write the speeches for Wallace perchance?
I’ve been rumbled!
Seems 10 -11 percent temp downgraded due to injuries at any time !
Force multipliers like the vehicle-mounted 7.62 calibre minigun which fires 3,000 rounds per minute would help matters somewhat.
Boxer has plenty of options available too and is working on more future options for this system including this one from MBDA.
More boots on the ground would be welcome of course!
MBDA’s Boxer Brimstone Mounted Close Combat Overwatch variant.
What a Swingfire replacement that would be!
It was things like this I was hoping to see in the review.
Instead, we had more musical chairs.
It most certainly would be Daniele and two of these remotely controlled platforms per unit would help to make up the shortfall in numbers and increase our firepower on the battlefield. Personally, I’m hoping we can get out of the Ajax programme with minimal losses incurred and purchase more variants of Boxer sooner rather than later. Does this article suggest we are weighting up an Ajax replacement as a just in case? “The newest vehicles came in a combat reconnaissance configuration, of which Australia stands to receive 131 copies under the $5.2 billion Land 400 Phase 2 Mounted Combat Reconnaissance… Read more »
I’m hoping the issues are fixed. There must have been something the army saw in the vehicle with its ISTAR package!
I’m personally fine with that figure. We aren’t going to have to deal with a UK land invasion alone and any overseas conflict where we would put boots on the ground would be done in a coalition. As an island nation it makes more sense to prioritise the RN and RAF, bringing capabilities like SSNs, carriers and ISTAR to the table whilst others do the grunt work. In terms of Army procurement someone has to step in and fix the situation. Off the shelf kit with no silly UK mods is what is needed.. At this point giving the Army… Read more »
What happens if the next big threat is home grown? I.e, no need for an invasion because the “troops” are already here? And in large numbers. Navy and RAF would be next to useless. Nuclear deterrent useless. Need infantry in good numbers still in my opinion. I’m obviously looking at that from a very extreme “5th column” type scenario but… hey it could happen right? I don’t disagree with your comments at all. Personally I’d rather see the defence budget increased even just a tad to keep more “fighty” personnel. Again it’s just my thoughts. Hope you are all having… Read more »
If the threat is already here then we have the Police CTC and plenty of other armed police units, who would have primacy.
Escalation of that is then SF and then the army has units available.
I cannot see a civil war scenario in our lifetime Matt.
What home grown threat could an infantry of 19,000 not defeat? The UK unlike the US isn’t awash with guns. Then factor in armed police too.
I appreciate the point you are making but lone wolf is the preferred strategy of 5th columnists. If a group did decide to start a fight within the UK it isn’t something 19,000 heavily armed troops with vehicles couldn’t easily stop. Infantry is the easiest part of the armed forces to grow in a short period of time.
Have a good morning!
Well, we seem unable to keep the Heroin from Afghanistan out of Britain. How long before all those Glock 19s, Berettas, M4s the Yanks left behind, start to be smuggled here?
You can forget armed police as a solution if there’s an insurgent/foreign soldiers in situ. We are not trained for anything other than small scale containment. Every force has an average of 140 trained/card-carrying in an average county, Metropolitan forces have around 500. It’s PSNI who would be called on in such a situation. They have around 4,500 card carriers. That’s a total of only 6,500 cases carrying AFO’s in the entire UK. The training we go through does not match the sort of training needed to face down a force with military-grade weapons. Certainly not the training I had… Read more »
I’m pretty much with you on this. RN, RAF first.
There are also not enough CS and CSS formations to form all arms brigades with the Infantry that we have.
We don’t need more Infantry. We need most of those battalions we do have to be at establishment strength with the firepower to match.
I would also disband several battalions and form CS&CSS regiments with the headcount.
So the quoted figure is fine, in my opinion.
I like your post. The last actual UK land invasion we had to deal with was in 1066. In my 34 years of service only lip service was paid to Home Defence. The army is fundamentally expeditionary, operating away from the homeland. Why should an island nation not have a moderately strong and capable army to conduct expeditionary operations? An island nation absolutely needs a strong Navy, but why a strong Air Force – the RAF is not protecting trade routes etc. I totally agree that AFV and artillery procurement is dire. Billions spent and not one new AFV or… Read more »
Actually the last UK land Invasion was in 1798 when French Troopship Landed in County Mayo in support of Irish patriots.
I was thinking of significant invasions – the 1066 invasion changed everything. The French comprised only a company. But I take your point. My point is that invasion of our homeland is not a big concern for our politicians or our armed forces – thats why the army is expert in and configured for overseas/expeditionary ops.
But the fact is the British army is not big enough to take and hold ground on a peer on peer battlefield.
Yeah, this is the reason behind the question i raised about comparative numbers. Being in a coalition is all well and good, but we have to bring something useful to that coalition or we are just there for PR reasons. If the coalition can defeat the enemy without us, then why were we there in the first place.
Dave, Who are ‘the West’s’ potential peer opponents? Top of the Threat list is Russia, then China, Iran, North Korea. None of those countries would be taken on (directly or elsewhere in a proxy war) by anything less than a very strong alliance, be it NATO-led or US-led. We would play a subordinate, supporting role. We will not fight alone. Even then we will be outnumbered, but we are used to that – in the Cold War, the WP outnumbered NATO by 2 or 3 to 1. 1 (BR) Corps faced 3 Shock Army over a 65km frontier. In Gulf… Read more »
The problem I have with that number is the idea of Bde training up, Bde in theatre, Bde wind down, Bde on leave… so how much land could a Bde hold; now in add in the sustainment elements missing a la Daniele and for me, it is a poor number; as Afghanistan showed. Again, kick off against the Russians would be a major conflaguration and the Russian would mince up our forces, we have no depth of defence. America might be very reluctant – see the mince meat machine above – to have young GIs never returning home, a NATO… Read more »
Good points. Of course the roulemont activity you describe in your ifirst paragraph relates just to enduring operations, such as Op HERRICK (Afghan) or TELIC (Iraq) – for that we need 5 deployable brigades of the correct structure to ensure Harmony guidelines are met (Tour Interval) – and for the army to have hardly any commitments elesewhere.. For a major conflict (one-shot) we do not have rouling – everything required goes out of the door. A brigade could hold about 20-40km of frontage in defence. Fair point about the US – would they even help the Taiwanese if China invade… Read more »
One thing no one talks about is the fact that the UK and the US (to a lesser extent) are casualty-averse. Losing a few hundred or even a few thousand men in a battle was once accepted as the price of doing business in war up until about 30 years ago. Being assigned to the infantry really was almost a guarantee of death or serious wounds. In WWII, the US wasted thousands of Marines’ and soldiers’ lives capturing Pacific islands which were of little or no strategic value (Peleliu, Tarawa, arguably even Iwo Jima), entire battalions and divisions were rendered… Read more »
Good points Jeg. Although more were killed and wounded in Afghan (457) it was over 20 years, not a few months. I remember the footage of corteges going through Wootton Basset for the Afghan and Iraq dead – which affected the public, plus graphic stories and images of limbless servicemen recuperating or doing sports. This prompted a downturn in recruiting, I am sure. It emphasis that our servicemen/women should be given the best ballistic protection possible and in the army that means well armoured (expensive) vehicles. The enablers also need some ballistic protection but most of them do not get… Read more »
Thats assuming said Peer has a larger, better trained and better equipped force.
Well they are going to be larger thats for sure.
Well who would we be fighting as a peer force and in what area? Would said peer force be able to send in a larger force than we are able to logistically?
We arent going to trot off to attack another nation on home soil are we?
Its the attrition rate I’m worried about we have no depth and cant afford to take to many loses.
I guess the total size of the British army might be around 115,000 by 2025 including personnel under training at different stages also FTR’s and military Provost guard / plus other personnel. Add to that the superb Royal Marine Brigade – numbering around 6,000 plus RM reserves. But, of course the equipment upgrades are hugely important over this coming decade.
While I know there’s an importance to raw numbers, it’s also worth looking at the percentages; An army that’s all support and no infantry is no good, nor is having too much infantry and not enouhg support. We’re looking at just under 20% of the Army is infantry. Hard to work out the numbers, but from a very brief search online the US Army looks to be 10%-15% infantry and the USMC closer to 20%. So we’re closer in proportion to the Marines. That’s OK for me, I think the British Army should see itself more as an expeditionary USMC-style… Read more »
I always used to work on the basis that the Infantry in a deployed group comprised about 25%.The article above shows 18.8% of the whole army being Infantry, which is not inconsistent.
The US Army has always had a lower percentage being Infantry, even back in the Vietnam era – they seem to require an enormous logistic footprint.
For the British Army, expeditionary operations are nothing new – we have not fought at home since 1066!
19,000 Infantry … well thats a load of old pony for starters! As we all know, an Infantry Battalion consists of foot soldiers, signallers, MT drivers, Command personnel, medics to name but a few. Take that number out of a battalion of 500 and your left with … Not one Infantry battalion within the British Army is currently up to full strength. Right now, the ‘bean counters’ are dreaming up all kinds of ‘jolly good ideas’, to slow down the process of recruitment, whilst if and when those currently serving get tired or ‘fed up’ and hand in their notice,… Read more »
I think we long ago gave up the idea of fighting and holding ground on a grand scale Tom…. Possibly the mid 1980’s, when we could deploy numerous armoured Brigades, backed up by a reasonable number of regular and TA mobilised infantry battalions to the European Central front. By 2030 our job in a hypothetical European war will be to use the considerable firepower at our disposal by then to help kick the door in and neutralise threats in depth, for the US and Polish formations to pour through with armour and infantry…. We will still be at the tip… Read more »
Hi John I hear what you are saying, but 19,500 is ridiculous. Toward the end of Iraq, and then in Afghanistan, the US had serious doubts about the UK’s ability to hold a small region with the number of Infantry that we had. Today, we do not even have the ability to field a FULL Division any more. Considering a Division consisted of around 16,000 individuals, that would leave 3.400 ‘other’s as a reserve or whatever. Maybe Britain should face facts for once, and let NATO know that we will provide special forces, specialist forces, and a 75% naval strike… Read more »
I couldn’t agree more Tom, our future will be deploying as a light Brigade of no more than 3,500 (mixed RM/Para force at the tip) for limited periods, door kicking and buggering off, in a maximum of three months… As for saying the Army reserve will ever be 30,000 genuinely trained and deployable troops, what a laugh, my guess is 10 to 15 thousand tops will ever be combat ready at any one time….. I don’t have a particular issue with that, if that’s whats been decided, then that’s that ….. But, if that’s what we are going to do,… Read more »
John, Not sure why you think we might only ever deploy a light role Brigade (or BCT in the new lingo) in future? The brigade we deployed to Helmand included GMLRS, Warriors and a host of wheeled armoured (ie PM) vehicles; the Danes deployed tanks there. We deployed heavy metal forces to both Gulf Wars. Could those type of scenarios never happen again? Totally agree that the Reserve Army would not really comprise 30,000 fully trained and deployable troops for all sorts of reasons including that many will not trust their employer to keep their job open for them. Also… Read more »
Morning Graham, I mention light brigade activities, because that’s unfortunately all we will ( are) now capable of doing. 3,500 is about the maximum sustainable force the Army can now deploy in anything other than a general war situation. An Afghan style 10,000 strong force would break the army in anything more than a very brief deployment in my opinion. The Army have ‘aspirations’ to deploy a division again by 2025, but considering they now consider a Battalion 250, so a Brigade is now 750???! They will probably call 3,500 a Division to be honest, the way it’s going, still… Read more »
Afternoon John, I bet if Gulf War 1 or 2 was to re-appear in a slightly different form, and the US asked us for a ‘show of support’ we would cobble together at least one armoured brigade, even if the kit was tired and unmodified. Its the ‘can do’ attitude that we are known for. I think it is wise to declare to the politicians that 3,500 figure for an enduring operation, as it sounds about right. The 10,000 Op HERRICK figure was for all services, so the army bit was probably about 6,500-7,000, but, whatever, we couldn’t do it… Read more »
Hi Graham, Absolutely, it is what it is to be honest. Those who say we can deploy in Divisional strength (during piece time) are quite frankly away with the fairies… A 3,500 strong Brigade enduring ( expected to stay more that 3 months) sized deployment, would be our contribution to hypothetical ‘Gulf War 3 ‘. That said, the capability of the forthcoming weapon systems will pack a punch way above anything we have operated in the past. Still, you can’t get away from the fact that numbers in all areas of the Army, is now way below critical mass. Providing… Read more »
Hi John, Gulf War 3 should not be an enduring op ie rouling of a Task Force every 6 months for years and years. It should be a one-shot deal – then everything that is required should get up and go – Gulf War 1 (Desert Storm) was only 100 hours long (less the preamble of Desert Shield) and that could be division(-) that the US would expect of us. But currently we could not send a modern, networked division. Thats a dichotomy. You are optimistic about future weapons – Boxers (possibly without cannons) replacing Warriors, only a modest increase… Read more »
Hi Tom, I recall it being said that Helmand was the size of Wales and we originally deployed a Task Force based on one Battle Group in 2006 – then the politicos ‘woke up and smelt the coffee’ and approved a significant uplift to a Brigade Group – still far too few for the size of the province and the disposition and tactics of the enemy. Really needed a division out there. Not sure about your construct of a division with 16,000 Infantry in it – that would never happen. Might get about 4,000 Infantry in a 16,000-strong Div. I… Read more »
We could never, ever deploy 19,000 Infantry (I assume they have all been through Phase 2 training), even if we wanted to. You have to deduct those in PCFs (Permenantly Committed Forces), those in training directing staff positions, those in Defence diplomacy/Loan Service posts, those in Directorates, Trials units, those in unit detention or at MCTC, those who are not FE, those who are on career courses, those in non-deployable units and HQs, those on compassionate leave, those imminently about to be retired/discharged, those in the Reserve Army who cannot get time off work or who don’t want to show… Read more »
19,400, is that projected numbers, as it has been pointed out just about all of our infantry battalions are under strength, and it take a bod with a rifle, bayonet fixed with some guts behind it to stand and fight all the rest is designed to keep the bob on that bit of ground able to do his/her job.
It takes 6 people to keep 1 person on the front line so mathematically you should have an army of at least 150,000.
I believe it just more waffle by the MoD to fend off the fact that it is inept.
I believe the MoD figures quoted in the article. Around 18.8% of the strength of the combined Regular and Reserve army being Infantry – 19,400 bods after implementation of SDSR21 is about – sounds about right.
Hello Graham, Yes it looks right on paper if you are a desk jockey in the MoD but if they are really talking about having 19,400 in the infantry (light and Mec) you would need an army of 150,000 or there about to support them. But if they are talking of 19,400 infantry places with about 50% to 60% filled as most of the battalions are today then you are looking more like the SDSR21 numbers remember it takes about 6 bods in support/logistics to keep 1 bod on the front line so unless the support and logistical bods are… Read more »
Hello Stephen, a few points from my own perspective: I don’t see that the non-infantry part of the army solely exist to support the infantry, but agree that the Infantry is at the heart of the army. I am used to a deployed ‘task force’ being about 25% Infantry to 75% Non-Infantry, although I am fairly sure that there was a higher %age of Infantry on Op BANNER. In the whole army it is more like 20% to 80%. You risk upsetting a lot of serving personnel and veterans (non-Infantry) by suggesting that only the Infantry are ‘on the front… Read more »
Hello Graham, The artical is about how many infantry we will have it dose not mention the engineers, signallers and medics who serve along side the infantry then you have the direct support in artillery, logistical support and the specialists all of which are needed for the bod on the front line to be able to do his or her job so unless the support element of a deployment are going to do back to back deployments there will not be enough personnel in the army to support 19,400 infantry by 2025.
The article was certainly just about the Infantry which is reducing. I think it is wrong to say that the rest of the army support the infantry, just that the Infantry is at the heart of all that is done. I prefer to say that every part of the army in a deployment supports each other part. It remains the case that in the British Army that a typically deployed Task Force might comprise 25% Infantry. That is no golden rule of course and Infantry numbers were more dominant on Op BANNER (NI), for example. The army is getting smaller… Read more »
I believe that the person/people who have put this together have gone for a minimalist support structure that dose not take into account the more mechanised your army becomes the more support it needs. The 25% infantry you speak of is indeed what has been happening in Afghanistan and Iraq as most of our Mech battalions have deployed in the light infantry role leaving most of the heavy equipment back in the UK or Germany but we are supposedly gearing back up to fight in a heavily mechanised environment so will need to gear up the support needed for that… Read more »
Hi Stephen, as I said before the rest of the army don’t exist solely to support the infantry, notwithstanding that the Infantry is at the heart of the army. We construct an organisation for a role or a mission – its called Task Org’ing. Often the Infantry will be centre stage – sometimes in significant number but sometimes in a smaller role. Lighter role infantry need a smaller logistic and equipment support fooprint. Infantry rarely operate alone and work with other arms, who may spend some of their time supporting the infantry and some on their own tasks or supporting… Read more »
Hello Graham, The bods called infantry are why army’s exist it is not the REMF’s that have to fix bayonets and watch the life drain out of the person you have just stuck. We can talk numbers all day long the fact is that all the infantry units are under strength and will be for the foreseeable future as it is not fashionable to be a grunt. The political classes seen to believe that we will be fighting wars with wiz kids armed with a lap top and a small drone that can carry around in their underpants but in… Read more »
This isn’t a bad thing as long as these individuals are actual infantry and not other badges in an infantry role. secondly with an army so small it really needs to be fully mechanised with said vehicles uparmed to provide the required fires using minimal amount of personnel. Every single front line vehicle should have a 40mm CTA (as it would seem to be the weapon of choice) and ATW station as a minimum. I also think now is the time to take a long hard look at formation and standardise on a 4 person fire team with one FT… Read more »
We always used to have armoured infantry (small numbers), mechanised infantry, light role infantry (once called Type B or lorried infantry), air assault infantry (a brigade’s worth). I think that is little different today. Few infantry ride in a heavily armed (cannon-equipped) vehicle. You cannot bin the above mix and insist that all the Infantry sit in a vehicle with a 40mm cannon. What platform? I don’t think there is a Boxer variant with a 40mm and Warrior upgrade has been cut. The cost of equipping 33 Reg battalions and 16 Reserve army battalions with such a capability would be… Read more »
Hi Graham, the cost is irrelevant really, as we have a commitment to those who serve, with an army so small we need really good vehicles that can protect its occupants and deliver a range of fires. Now I know money is important, but as Ajax and snatch land rover have shown there seems to be a deep disregard for the people who actually serve and this has to stop. yes it is a lot of kit, but let’s face it most of the kit we currently have is not fit for purpose and needs replaced, this is accepted at… Read more »
Ha! Type B Battalions, that takes me back.
If I recall there were a few Type C knocking about in the TA too.
At the height of the Cold War our mechanized infantry battalions in the BAOR’s 3 Divisions numbered 15, out of 56 battalions.
So the British Infantry has always been light for the most part.
Post Cold War they remained at 15 ( 9 Warrior/6 FV432, then 12, then 9. With Strike they were to number 8. Now 4!!!!
Great eh!!
Correction! With the latest review they have dug up another Boxer battalion from somewhere, which will now number 5. ( While keeping same number of vehicles ) so no actual increase. Probably fiddled with variants to get more infantry carriers rather than the incoming glut of C3 and engineer vehicles )
I don’t recall Type C battalions – what were they?
Most armies have or had a minority of their forces in an armoured or mechanised (tracked) role – even the Wehrmacht.
I served 1975-2009 and saw the army shrunk time and again. Its hard for the army to do ‘Global Britain’ with strength now.
I lament the imminent demise of Warrior – it should have been upgraded with WCSP – instead we will get wheeled Boxers, probably without a cannon – and have to pay far more than the WCSP package. The lunatics are running the asylum.
Morning Graham. I’d have to check in my old books for Type C, unless I am imagining them. I recalled they were a type of TA infantry Battalion for home defence roles?
Do you use Twitter? The WCSP Warrior prototypes have already been scrapped! Photos online. As UKAFC rightly commented, best to do it quickly before such a stupid decision is reversed.
Indeed, lunatics.
Not enough to even defend ther Home Counties if a hostile nation like Russia decided to invade
Absolutely support this approach. I think we need to invest in a bigger escort fleet etc and focus on getting our naval presence built up. If we faced a proper shooting war we could ramp up our numbers as needed but we can’t exactly ramp up our shipbuilding capacity!
As a civilian with zero military experience I respect the learned views expounded here by people who all sound like ex-professionals – but I’m pretty shocked I have to say. First by the tiny size the British Army is reduced to and, secondly by what sounds here almost like complacency on your part. I know you believe you are just accepting political reality but the notion that the UK will ‘never again fight alone’ is frightening. Who knows what the future holds? Who knows what allies we shall be able to rely on? If the present situation is political reality,… Read more »
The last time we fought alone was for the very brief Falklands Conflict nearly 40 years ago – the recovery of a British territory was clearly British-only business. Other British-only operations were colonial conflicts even further back in time – or Op Banner in NI. Many senior British politicians have said that we are highly unlikely to fight alone again – I agree. The nations that threaten ‘the West’ require a coalition to oppose them. No nation is seriously threatening just the UK. If we have all got it wrong then we have enough forces in the UK to deal… Read more »
Question? Why are we down sizing our military when everyone else is increasing their military manpower? Poland alone is set to double its military in the near future.
Josh,
I don’t think everyone is increasing military strength. Poland is of course right next door to Russia who is sabre-rattling; no wonder they have strengthened forces, but who else has done?
Isn’t that an increase in the infantry by like 3k+? And that’ll be total infantry, Reg and Reserve unless some wacky force structure is happening.
No, it is not an increase in infantry numbers, it is another sneaky cut. We had 22,500 regular infantry at the last count. The key point that so many overlook is that this was TRAINED infantry, recruits had done their 10 week basic Phase 1 training, which all arms do, and their 16 weeks combat infantry training. On completion of that, they are considered trained. However, the MOD quietly changed that about 2 years ago, deciding to deem all troops ‘trained after 10 weeks basic. This is of course a nonsense. An infantryman with just basic training would be a… Read more »
The change in definition of trained strength was made back in 2016, the years slip by. Trained Strength is phase 1 trained, Trade Trained Strength is phase 2 trained.
At 1st October 2021 the Full Time (regular) Trained Strength of the Army was 83,010 of which 77,530 were Trade Trained. The Full Time Trade Trained Strength (FTTTS) will be cut to the new requirement of 73,000,
Reporting of the reserves is trained strength only. At 1 Oct the Army Reserve trained strength was 26,350,
Huh, could’ve sworn I saw it was something like 15/16k. Should’ve guessed it wasn’t so, more the fool me. I mentioned the Reserves because nearly 20k infantry in a 73k strong army is quite a low tooth to tail ratio.
The infantry would love an increase of 3,000 posts. Nope, thats not happening.
SofS announced a small increase of 500 posts (after a cut of 10,000 established posts) to the army as a whole.
George,
It always surprises how quickly army-related articles like this one are relegated from the ‘front page’, while navy articles about harbour craft or what the carrier did next seem to linger on forever.
Needs a bit more balance methinks?
If you use the third, third, third, principle, then surely you need a bare minimum of 21,000? I am not happy taking the Army below 50% of its late cold war strength, which was 160,000. So I think it a mistake to go below 80,000.
It was a mistake to go below 120,000 which was the figure arrived at for the post Cold War army in Options for Change.
John,
Third, third, third principle – are you talking about the Formation Readiness Cycle? I thought that had been renamed, then dropped?
Absolutely catastrophic!
I see a lot of comments about arms and armour but the way weapons are being developed these days armour will be superceded by men on the ground!
Only infantry can take and hold ground. A shameful position especially as it appears we are in Cold War II and the lack of numbers could cost lives. I will admit I know little of Army numbers, even my old bootneck’s size is a shadow of it’s former self.
Anyone able to confirm how many active/reserve infantry battalions this will equate to?
Apaprently we have 33 Regular (Active duty for the US speaker) and 16 Reserve infantry battalions. Total 49 battalions. However after the 2021 review takes effect that will reduce by perhaps about 5 battalions.
Hi Graham . Thank you for the reply and the info – appreciate that
Not really relevant, but thought-provoking. 19,400 is about the total British dead suffered on 1 July 1916, the first day of the Somme battle…
Thanks for this. Total casualties (KIA, DOW, Missing) was 57,470 for that first day, mostly just in the morning. Our army of 73,000 would not have lasted long.