Despite recent media speculation about a potential increase, the Ministry of Defence has again officially confirmed that the full-time strength of the British Army will indeed reduce to 73,000 by 2025.
This decision forms a key part of the “Future Soldier” strategy, targeting a comprehensive force of over 100,000, which will include 30,100 Army Reserve personnel.
This clarity came in response to a written parliamentary question.
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, specifically asked in the House of Commons on 7 September 2023, “To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether it remains his Department’s policy to reduce the full time strength of the British Army to 73,000 by 2025.”
James Heappey, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, responded unequivocally, stating, “Yes. The Army is continuing to implement Future Soldier which will see a whole force of over 100,000 comprising of 73,000 Regular Service Personnel and 30,100 Army Reserve.”
What’s happening?
In 2021, the government announced it would reduce the size of the army from 82,000 to 73,000 trained regulars. It also said the army would be modernised to take advantage of new technologies.
In January 2023, the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee published a report entitled ‘UK defence policy: From aspiration to reality?’. The committee agreed with the government that the integrated review needed to be re-examined in light of the war in Ukraine.
It argued the “strategic assumptions” on which the previous integrated review was based had now changed. As part of its inquiry, the committee considered the issue of the size of the army.
Concerns raised
The report noted that some of the witnesses it had heard evidence from had expressed concern about plans to reduce the number of army personnel. This included the former chief of the defence staff, General Sir Nick Carter, who argued the size of the army should be “in the order of 80,000” to ensure that the UK could field a full division of troops as part of a combined NATO force.
The committee also heard evidence from Professor Michael Clarke, the former deputy director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, who argued the government’s target size for the army would be sufficient to field a full combat division but would not leave sufficient capacity for the army to do anything else.
Crazy!
Bloody Nick Carter joining the group of ex senior officers who toed the party line while he could do something about it and now choppsing off from retirement.
Yep, SOP.
If he wanted 80,000, a figure which we have been below for some time, why didn’t he insist Capita is dropped, ACOs returned, and conditions improved.
We know there are units below establishment that the army cannot resolve, I believe from the RAMC and RLC especially.
In A2020R, seemingly his only focus was cutting Tanks and moving Boxer to No1 priority while other major programs were underway. The rationale of which you explained, reflecting French doctrine and Orbat.
On the plus side, the Army is getting a lot of new equipment, much of which should have been incrementally replaced over decades.
I again, amongst the wails, ask, what use is a headline figure for any Army, much of which is by design not deployable and exists to enable the deployable part to actually deploy?
Be it 80,000, 77,000, 73,000. What matters is what brigades we can deploy and their equipment and logistical tail.
These MPs NEVER ask what are we doing to increase that brigade count and enable them. As we know, there is the CS CSS formations issue for 4X.
How refreshing it would be for John Healy to actually commit what he’d do and what he’d cut to pay for it, or what extra money would he find?
A reprieve of the the 3,000 actual bodies lost ( as the army has not been at 82k for years, its roughly 76k I think ) means maybe we can form those CS CSS elements.
And that means, what gets cut instead? What do we choose?
Are Labour about to increase the budget to enable that or maybe remove pensions or capital costs of Trident back to the Treasury Reserve? The bloody Tories clearly aren’t.
Ultimately, I agree around 80,000 is needed. Who is paying for it while keeping other programs running, other services funded, and Trident sitting in the corner.
I totally agree on your point regarding the Force Elements (Brigades) the Army can actually deploy, and more importantly, sustain. At present we are totally kidding ourselves. Forget the people or the equipment. We do not have the ‘stock’ to force generate the vehicles that would be required to deploy, let alone sustain them once deployed. And if we think we can just buy more stock at short notice, I’m afraid industry is just not going to be able to react quickly enough. We are not going to be able to get to the fight in time to make a difference, and when we get there we won’t be able to sustain ourselves.
There is not much point worrying about the size of the Army if we cant actually sustain the deployable formations.
Totally agree
Couldn’t agree more!!
Hi Daniele
Are you ready for an aneurysm?
Labour Party membership is only £3 per year for former/serving members of the Armed Forces, can I call on you to encourage all members of this website to apply, where applicable?
🙂
Why? Tomorrow, I will participate in a meet the candidate MP and will grill them on Defence. Should other members of this website do the same to their Labour candidates it would raise awareness in Labour that Defence is an issue for the electorate and spaffing cash on LGBTQ+XYZ123 pendolino vinyls is not.
I look forward to your endorsement 😉
I endorse it, David.
As there are no doubt equal numbers of LP members who want the forces scrapped or don’t give a toss.
Any read of Healey’s Twitter feed with assorted left wing loons demanding Labour don’t spend money on the military is an eye opener.
So it’s a subject that needs emphasising. Sadly, Labour have no interest in it.
I won’t be taking prisoners tomorrow Daniele.
Good. Mate, if Labour prove themselves to be strong on defence and maintain our international commitments then fine, even I may vote for them, given the current rabble.
It would be a first, for very good reason.
I will withhold judgement there until they prove otherwise…
No one could ask more.
Actually not true, most labour party members value the UK armed forces, and labour has a good track record on defense, at least by comparison with the Tories. Labour is committed to 2.5 GDP spending the issue is that as the Tories have trashed the economy it’s debatable if that will be enough. Brexit if course has also diminished our world standing and nothing apart from rejoining will rectify that disaster.
Hi Andy.
“Labour is committed to 2.5 GDP spending”
Really? Can you provide a link to this? As far as I know they have not committed to anything at all.
“Labour has a good track record on defense, at least by comparison with the Tories.”
I don’t think so. Happy to do compares with you in 3 areas since 95 Front Line First, that being personnel numbers, ships and planes, and equipment programs started.
No doubt the Tories have cut way, way more personnel. But the other areas both have been awful. These comments always amaze me that Labour “have a good track record” I don’t think anyone who followed defence from 97 to 2010 would actually think that given the cuts that took place in that time and the progeams that were never started, were cancelled, or simply went round in circles. The current Ajax issues stem directly from that period with FRES and Tracer.
“is that as the Tories have trashed the economy”
Yes, not great. Do you not also agree that Covid and its after effects, the war in Ukraine, and race to be green has not also caused problems with higher prices and inflation?
Also, I recall in 2010 when the Tories took power the economy was also trashed then with the immortal note left for ministers by the previous incumbents to the effect that the money is gone.
It works both ways.
Brexit is only a disaster if you’re against it. Many Labour voters were not and actually voted for it. Diminished our world standing? Yet we lead on Ukraine and when Russia poisoned people on our streets allies around the world sided with us.
“Actually not true, most labour party members”
Do you have a link for that, given how LP membership voted against AUKUS and Young Labour against NATO?
On Kuennsberg today, apparently it was a rolling jolly jape about the ‘note,’ Cameron over rode convention and made it into some kind of fable – that’s what was said.
We’ve had the dates issue; please back track to the peace dividend, or go back further to Nott and Thatcher, or simply bury the hatchet; we need to move on.
The UK operating in the Pacific is a distraction laid by the ace bluffer. You haven’t replied to my post the other day.
Brexit IS a disaster and highlights the best of Con sophistry and distraction; should the Scots go it alone?
All but 5 ‘refugees’ were returned to Europe in 2019… and now, the Cons have made their failure a political issue which shows how strong they are. We live in a dystopian world.
As to Labour voters, just like my Con mother, they can be racist and xenophobic- and Brexit played on those issues, given your heritage, I hope you one day reconsider the whole; the UK is much weaker now.
Turning to COVID, Latvia locked her borders, and our doors. I could shop for food otherwise, no work. Brutal. It worked. Stats show that Bluffer lied about the efficacy of his methods, the Economist publicised it, England performed badly against European nations; then again, UK airports were left to operate and the illness flowed in. I worked on the 119 line, it could be harrowing.
Salisbury. An attack on a nation State and we did what? Well the Cons just kept taking oligarch money.
Daniele, my friend, whichever MP represents my Constituency, they’ll be held to account; MPs of all hues have had an easy ride for far too long.
Why is being a member of the EU essential for a high standing in the world? Did other countries respect us more and have a higher opinion of ourselves when we were in the EU? I don’t think so.
I don’t have a higher opinion of Belgium compared to Norway or Switzerland.
So true but he is not alone. All three services have had ex leaders shouting to anyone that will listen over the years once they have retired. When in post they were just yes men and towed the line. Sadly in my experience the vast majority of the officer Corps at all levels are subject to the same thinking. After all any criticism written or vocal is tantamount to career suicide. The greasy pole and how far you can get up it does not make for good and effective leadership. In particular I would like to see all three service chiefs resign on a point of principle over cuts. It would actually make them noteworthy in history rather than points of ridicule as they tend to become.
That is required of armed forces officers in a democracy. It’s am accepted convention that former senior officers speak for thw forces.
Considering we are one of the only countries in Western Europe still with a net positive increases in population each year I find this absolutely absurd.
Apparently the “new Britains” aren’t as eager to serve. Shame that.
Should bring national service back in. Does anyone else agree? Or is it a bad idea?
No it should definitely be brought back change a hell of a lot be better
Disagree, seeing that you ask. Consider how we had a far larger army of professionals in the Cold war from a smaller population from that of today. I doubt the Army wants national service. What it needs is dedicated, commited, capable people able to master the complexities of modern warfare; not having to manage totally insuitable contrary types in no way fit for service. Improve wages & conditions, accomodation etc, let the Army do its own recruiting. I’d like to see 100,000 as a minimum with 3 deployable divisions. That is the way to speak softly but carry a big stick. It would give the likes of Russia & China more anxiety about their expansionist agendas.
Btw heard on the BBC recently China had made a claim on another part of India!
Damn right the army doesn’t want National Service. How long would we force people to serve for anyway? A year? Infantry training is 32 weeks, specialist training in the corps often even longer, so you get, after annual leave, what 10 weeks service back? Of really basic, barely knows what they are doing, infantry skills?
I appreciate that a NS intake wouldn’t realistically get to a Regular level either in time or motivation, however when you look at Finland, which does have NS, there is something to note. Finns have NS in common so an understanding of the Sovereign Nation and what it takes to defend it.
About 3% GDP investment in Defense and a folk memory of the Winter War shows that living next door to a terrorist state does focus the mind.
Of course NS is not for everyone and those incapable or unwilling do have non-military service to do, thus including everyone and minimising the down-sides.
So NS would not be Regular induction and Basic training that is suitable for developing a deployable unit, rather something more Territorial. Since there will be health benefits to completers, it should be funded from the health budget taking a long term investment view, like Sport funding. Lots of PTIs.
The Finns have a strong consensus about national sovereignty and independence as demonstrated by their decision to join NATO because kaputin said it wasn’t their choice. Further their investment in Defence is large and well supported.
So there’s not much of the regular complaint in this parish that politicians don’t understand or value Defense. The professional forces in Finland are small, but the reserves are massive because everyone, and his sister, were trained and go back for updates regularly.
The Finns have a saying about the Winter War: The Army saw the soviets advancing through Karelia and said “so many enemies arriving” a pause for thought, then “there isn’t room to bury them all”, which of course they mostly did.
Finland also has a standing army of about 3,000 professional soldiers, zero expeditionary capacity, and no navy.
The UK has no need for a teritorial defence force, we are at the far end of europe from any threat, our forces nned to be expeditionary by design and nature. Which is why even at the height of the cold war, when we expected to do a massive conventional fight against a conventional enemy considerably more powerful than Russia is today, we did not introduce conscription (infact that was when we got rid of it).
Finland is in the position where it is entirely possible that Russian forces could be in Helsinki within 4 hours of a declaration of war if they achieved strategic surprise and managed to thunder run it. Being able to call up a lot of soldiers at very short notice to die in place is what they need, and their entire military is geared around that. It is precisely NOT what the UK needs. (Also the Finnish investment in defence is large? It’s less than 10 billion per anum, or, for the people who care desperately about % of GDP: Finland has consitently spend about 1.5% of GDP throughout the 2000’s on defence, only raising it to 1.9 in the last year or two).
So what would the UK gain from reintroducing National Service? First it would gut the army. There are no two ways about that. The Army would have to reconfigure completely around constantly training up new intakes of conscripts every 6 months, and say goodbye to the idea of anything being deployable, because by the time a soldier would be ready to be sent out the door, his term of service would be so close to over that he wouldn’t be able to compete a tour. Again: you’d have to deal with the toxicity of people who don’t want to be there destroying unit moral, the only mercy would be people would be leaving so quickly that the rot might not set in. Remember we basically babysit soldiers for their first year or two in service. (Also if you think we’ll be churning out PTI’s from conscripts you’ll have a shock, the army doesn’t want people attending unless they have multiple years experience and preferably are NCO’s, for good reason).
And for what? We’d gain a territorial service that would defend a territory that would only ever be under threat if all of eastern and western europe, and scandinavia to boot had been over run, as if the French wouldn’t have pressed the Nuclear button by then. It’s expensive, its counter productive and it’s pointless.
Finally: And this goes to everyone who likes to bring up the Winter War: Let me remind you that Finland lost the winter war. And round two as well. It had to cede 10% of it’s territory, including it’s second largest city, 12% of it’s population was displaced/ethnically cleansed by the Soviets. To put it bluntly, they had to give up more than what the Soviets where asking for pre war.
Well explained.
People that think that, haven’t served.
National service would be political suicide for any politician.
I’d go with making cadets a mandatory GCSE to give the general population an understanding of the military that isn’t completely shaped by Hollywood.
My father, RRA, JL, 26 years served, disagreed.
He said it was a waste of cash and resources and just took people who generally, didn’t want to be there.
My grandfather, a retired RA major, had similar views. He used to quote a senior general (Templar?) who said that NS might have been good for the country but “damn near finished off the army”.
Absolutely horrendous idea. We are short enough on cash as it is without having to shepard several hundred thousand people through training (and equip them) every year, nor do the armed forces want to deal with hordes of unmotivated people who want nothing more than to leave.
It’s bad enough having a toxic individual in a unit who is just counting the days until sign off, f*ck having to deal with whole platoons of them!
Well our 21 year old son is a Royal Marine is that eager enough for you.
Try joining, they don’t make it easy, used to be turn up at cio, get guided through
Now go online, fill out huge form, answer online questions , attend virtual meetings then meet a person who might or might not be interested. Apparently the youth of today prefer on line to face to face?
…and probably will turn you away if you are a white male – or is that just the RAF?
Did you mean Britons?
No, I use that spelling specifically for the pre Roman (and should really be pre Celtic) population of these Isles.
Tell that to Elgar…
Or tbf Thomas Arne, but Elgar is the better comeback 😛
I only really wanted to reply with an amusing gif but don’t know how to do that, so you got that dull excuse instead. Sorry.
I don’t know if UKDJ lets you post gifs, lets find out:
https://media.tenor.com/6C9ZZO1oIEwAAAAd/rule-brittania-britain.gif
That worked. 🤔
Our entire army won’t even come close to filling Wembley Stadium. Nuts.
That really puts it into perspective
Numbers count no matter how well trained you are.
“Wembley Stadium is the national stadium of England and the home of English football. Put simply, it really doesn’t get any better than Wembley. With 90,000 seats, it’s the largest sports venue in the UK and the second-largest stadium in Europe.”
Your Country Needs You. Well, you could have fooled me.
https://i.redd.it/4qi8ybj3tfc51.jpg
TOO MANY.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/John_Bull_-_World_War_I_recruiting_poster.jpeg/178px-John_Bull_-_World_War_I_recruiting_poster.jpeg
What stopped you from joining up full time then ….
“What stopped you from joining up full time then ….”
A career that allowed me to retire at fifty-four while serving in the TA for almost three years before moving to Melbourne Australia and a continued trip around the world in TV post-production.
You should have just joined the Navy 👍
What was the British Army in 30’s before the race to stop Germans started?
About 330000 in 1936. Relevant information here
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/sep/01/military-service-personnel-total
Thanks David, Mark.
In 1933 (at the low point) 316,000.
Drastically different circumstances back them Alex. We had a huge empire to run, police & garrison, many rebels & hot spots.
Also, and I always want to point this out: Peacetime armies where generally in a different size category back then.
Comparing the size of the British Army to the capacity of a stadium is an utterly pointless comparison.
Very telling when these comments also come from people who decided that full time service wasn’t for them because “I have a good job.”
Everyone is free to comment regardless of military service or not. But the ones with some real frontline experience certainly bring another level of experience and knowledge from what others just read on the Internet. My pal Danielle hasn’t served, but has some of the best abd most accurate military knowledge of anyone who regularly uses this site. Others……not so much. I’m fortunate to have an excellent job in offshore wind, and I also enjoyed 14 years with the Fleet Air Arm. Mainly with Joint Force Harrier and the Invincible class carrier’s.
Can comment for sure, but there’s a sort of disengenious tone to whining about the army not fitting into wembly and when you chose never to join the regulars you see what I mean?
Yes, i do pal. I can’t stand the stadium capacity comparison. Utterly pointless.
Depends if the totals are due to no-one wanting to join or are figures dependant on so called operational requirements.
I hope its the later – at least if its misguided by the powers that be then its a political decision.
No, I feel those that signed up to e.g. AR, have valuable comments.
I’ve acknowledged that what I did was minuscule compared to later AR on Herrick and Telic, but, I volunteered for GW1; are my opinions less than my father’s who never even cocked a loaded weapon and pointed it at a potential hostile agent? He did +/- 26 years, leaving as a S/Sgt.
Wembley Stadium is irrelevant, however, the plans of this man are not:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Walker
Google his views on Army Manning, and several people may well get an attack of the vapours.
Just checked in and most annoyingly a long, detailed appraisal I composed this morning adding to Derns Carter comments has vanished.
“A career that allowed me to retire at fifty-four while serving in the TA for almost three years before moving to Melbourne Australia and a continued trip around the world in TV post-production.”
At what point did I imply joining the Armed Forces full-time wasn’t a good job?
DERN
“I’m not going to bother to read that since you clearly don’t bother to read my responses.
“*Edit* nor do I suspect, given your penchant for non-sequiturs, does it have anything to do with what I said.” 😉
Two cheeks of the same arse, which one are you? Left Or Right?
Oh sorry I wasn’t talking to you.
I guess if you think I was making a reference to you it shows your own insecurities.
(Also thanks for confirming that reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, we all knew that but, it’s nice for you to spell it out).
We should all be entitled to comment, we either serve in the army or pay for its upkeep, so all our opinions count.
Already addressed this point didn’t I?
Seems to me drones are it, we need thousands and anti drones capabilities and tha few people far back to control them , why put our people in harms way until the odds are in our favour , we have very small responsibilities around the world now sadly, we could deal with a Falkland situation, drones , drones drones
And still these needless cuts continue, absolute disgrace.
Agreed.
Fxxxxxg useless tory government, thank god that load of garbage will be gone ,bankers running this country sunak useless cxxt,well labour had better stand up and be counted ,the armed forces have been shafted again by corrupt useless bxxxxxds ,
Agreed with you there, its bloody government are useless and being tight their wallets!!
Trying to think who we’ve had at the UK helm for the last 30 years who could fairly be described as a leader rather than a essentially spin doctor with an angle to promote. Incredibly, if measured purely in terms of sincerity quotient, I come up with Theresa May – admittedly others May disagree……. Other than that, at best it’s been a case of, ‘At least they’re better than the other candidate.’
But eventually, Party soundbites triumph irrespective. So now, it would appear we have a choice between an increasingly Fixed Grin or permanent Sad Face (why no tinkly piano accompaniment I’ve no idea). Neither offering great inspiration at this time.
Theresa May who deported British Citizens from their own country?
…and cut the Police by 20,000.
Morning Graham. About all we have left 🤞 * are Parties that haven’t yet encouraged violently storming our seat of government because they don’t like a legitimate democratic outcome.
* nothing truer than – the greatest threat to democracy comes from within. Mind you, if the bastards feel tempted at any time, we’ve been known to 🤪
I remember the Poll Tax riots – all that violence just about a different way of paying local taxes.
Things are more adrift in this country now, but the people aren’t rioting…yet.
Morning, BC. For now, I’ll assume you’re with the ‘disagree’ faction, then. Genuinely interested in any options of your own, though; unless you feel I went too far in nominating anyone. Could well understand.
Rgs.
Not happy about our Army strength reduction its size! Why?
Just wondering are there any vets out there that would actually encourage any of their family to join the British defence force and in light of the cuts would any of the reservists actually respond to a call up
Where in the Merchant Navy from 1977 to 2015.
Strangely enough sailed from the late 80′ on Norwegian, Swedish and Danish vessels. Seemingly the UK government after the Falklands believed these European countries with British officers could be chartered in the same way as in 82 “Taken up in service”. The first Gulf War shocked Major when we could not get our tanks to the gulf.
That shock didn’t stop him lopping 40% off the Defence budget, did it?
Could not get our tanks to the Gulf? What? We got 221 CR1s to the Gulf and thousands more vehicles..pretty quickly too.
My son won’t be joining the British Army, but after his degree, he will be joining the Czech Military Police.
His younger sister will be… sign posted into the RMP after her education.
How much do you bet the tories will conveniently forget they initiated these cuts when they are in opposition and will make a massive stink.
Bound to. Just like Labour do now who continued cutting after Options for Change and then Front Line First in 95 ?
They’re as bad as each other.
Is it April 1st?
We’re getting to the point where it’s not worth maintaining any armed forces. Why are we as a country paying an absolute fortune on maintaining a tiny armed forces?
The RAF and RN are still considerable fighting forces, the unfortunate reality is that the army should be the lowest priority branch as they’re not particularly relevant to defending the UK.
There is no contest in an age where accountancy triumphs over strategy. Also, I can’t think why any ambitious young person with the skills these perpetual defences reviews insist will replace boots with bytes would bother enlisting in our diminished armed forces given the numerous opportunities offered for far more money and far less aggravation elsewhere in the economy.
Even prior to the current situation in Ukraine , many felt the ongoing reductions in the Army were questionable- Now its just farcical.
Tells you all you need to know about the drivers of these decisions – and its not defence.
How does this total compare to other western forces?
How will it impact on our capabilty as a fighting force?
What affect will it have on our credibility within NATO ?
The Americans thought our credibility was gone years back when we cut from 95,000 to 82,000.
Afternoon Sir.
Yes, have you noticed that even English news channels are beginning to refer to the British Defence Force?
Unfortunate, but, true; We no longer have an Army.
Hi David, I had not noticed use of this strange term. We have normally said ‘the/our Armed Forces’ or ‘HM Forces’, ‘the Forces’, the ‘armed services’. The term ‘British Defence Force’ is not an accurate or approved term. Mind you, the media often get it wrong as regards Defence matters.
In times gone past it was considered that an army was over 100,000. But this meant the army as a numbered field formation, not the complete national ground warfare entity.
Example. On 18 November 1941, the Eighth Army commenced the battle to retake Cyrenaica and lift the siege of Tobruk. The Eighth Army at this time comprised 118,000 men and included 738 tanks. An Army was usually comprising an Army HQ, three Corps and Army-level Troops. The Eighth Army was a numbered field formation.
I really don’t think you can say that the (whole of) the British Army is not an army because it is less than 100,000. That is a totally different use of the word ‘army’. Anyway the whole army is over 100,000 when you count in the AR, Ghurkas and the RR, and the regular personnel on Ph1 trg.
This doesn’t mean I am content with the size of the Reg Army – our warfighting div lacks a true third manouevre brigade, CS and CSS cover is sparse in places and we would not be able to roulement a reg army brigade on an enduring operation.
The other reason I dislike the term ‘Defence Force’ is because it implies that such a force solely defends the UK homeland. Our forces do so much more than that. They specialise in expeditionary operations, especially but not just warfighting, and are deployable thoughout the world.
Hi Sir,
Apparently, numbers vary.
Although your post is credit worthy, personnel under Phase 2 training should not be included, and no way should Phase 1 be considered.
AR and RR, whatever the numbers, I doubt you’d ever get a full response to a call out.
Of course, estimates vary but 10% have biff chits – of the regular Army – the remaining force leaves you with two terms:
1. UK Defence Force or
2. A joke
What would you prefer?
Hi David,
I agree that personnel under Ph2 training should not be included in the headline 73,000 figure – they didn’t used to be. Welcome to the wonderful world of slimy, spin-obsessed, lying, cheating politicians!
You would only attempt to call out all ARs and RRs for WW3. Conflicts such as the two Gulf Wars and Afghanistan saw a lot of TA/AR deploy – as many as we needed. When I was in Camp Bastion 2/3 of my FP Coy including the OC were TA.
You are right that typically 10% of the army is non-FE. A bigger issue is that only about 70% of the headline figure of 82,000/73,000 are in the Field Force (or the Field Army as they like to call it now). The other 30% are in the Static Org, which by definition does not deploy.
I estimate that about 45,000 soldiers of the 73,000 might be deployable – and even then certain existing commitments would probable have to be cut or pared back for a very large scale deployment.
I gave 34 years of my life to the army – it would take a supreme effort to call it a joke.
We have an army (of that there should be no doubt – I explained that the 100,00 figure only applied to a numbered field formation, such as the 8th Army, 14th Army etc) but our current army is a very small one and getting smaller, with low ‘peacetime morale’ and a poor retention rate. Recruiting is sub-optimal as ‘the offer’ is unappealing to many young people and the recruiting contractor (Capita) is ueless. Warfighting equipment is mostly old and unmodernised. Some accomodation is awful both for pads and singlies.
But the training is great, mostly the leadership is good, new equipment/upgraded equipment is slowly being developed/built or fielded. Our combat experience, versatility & adaptibility and fighting spirit is unrivalled. There are grounds for optimism, but politicians and the public must realise that the army can’t do operations at the scale that it once did.
You know Sir, we can agree on many things.
However, the Leadership is pants because the Leadership is the Govt and if we take your figures with a HUGE pinch of salt, we can deploy an enhanced Brigade.
I’ve already replied to you on another thread about the potential Labour MP for Furness (BAE Systems). It is a dire situation.
Regards.
Hi David,
I did mean the military leadership from LCpls to Generals, and the equivalents for the other services.
The civilian leadership is variable in quality and integrity – Ben Wallace (BW) was regarded by most as good to excellent – Grant Shapps might be terrible, but lets give him a chance. Rishi knows nothing about Defence and has certainly
Not sure why my figures need a HUGE pinch of salt – they are borne out of a lot of experience. Perhaps you could explain your doubts about them?
My key figure was that I estimated that 45,000 out of the 73,000 headline figure might be deployable – that ensures much, much more than a brigade group (6,000-7,000?) to deploy on a one-shot operation.
BW considered the modern warfighting division (3xx) to be 10k strong:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hollowed-out-military-cant-send-division-to-war-l2lvpn0jw
so deployment of such a div is do-able too, on a purely troop numbers basis. Not saying the kit will be top-notch or there won’t be capability gaps. [Personally I think 3xx is more than 10k strong, but he’s the boss – or was]
What we can’t do with a 73k reg army is to deploy a brigade group on an enduring operation, whilst maintaing Harmony guidelines, without recourse to AR and/or the commando brigade (if reconstituted to be a three-Cdo formation).
Good evening Sir,
You got there in the end.
Enduring operation.
The UK Armed Forces struggled with Afghanistan and indeed the Royal took on one roulement.
We don’t have an Army, we have a Defence Force and that is what will be bequeathed to Starmer.
That then begs the question that Daniele won’t like, if we can’t with effect and endurance operate out of European Theatre, why should we?
Now, about taking a khukri to the woke in the British Army Braid, reconstituting an enabled Brigade of Ghurkas alongside enabled Commando and PARA Brigades to form an effective Division of light infantry
… not forgetting the Royal Irish!
😉
Hi David, Very important to clearly differentiate between a one-shot deployment and an enduring operation, of course. Can’t just say we can’t deploy a brigade (from a 73k baseline) without such qualification.
I deployed as an individual augmentee in support of 3 Cdo Bde (Nov 08-May 09). The army previously also deployed 52 Inf Bde on Herrick 7, quite unexpected at the time as they were light role and not even 3xx assigned until April 2007.
With Op Cabrit we are comforatably able to roule a BG indefinitely. We could not realistically roule a brigade, as we have said. But war with Russia (if it ever came to it, which I doubt) would be in the one-shot category, so of course we could and would deploy 3xx in its entirety and other formations and units as required.
Very original thought in your last paragraph! Some have contemplating assigning/detatching the Commando brigade to an army division permanently, (whilst remembering they are part of the Naval Service of course).
Definitely scope to resurrect the Brigade of Ghurkas and increase their numbers by an extra battalion or two (check in with the bean-counters, first, though) – they are always very well recruited.
You still maintain that we have a Defence Force, not an army, so clearly not accepting my point that the old crude guideline that an army had to be over 100k only referred to a numbered field formation such as the WW2 8th Army etc.
A Defence Force by definition would solely defend its own territory and not have the manpower, training, equipment, will or skill to deploy on overseas expeditionary operations? We do that and have always done that. If we have deployed short-handed it is because politicians have not authorised the number the army require – that sadly is realpolitik.
Presumably you consider that the only countries of the 31 in NATO with an army (using your defintion) rather than a mere (Land) Defence Force are: USA, France, Greece, Turkey. That doesn’t get us very far in the real world.
100,000!
The 100,000 figure doesn’t even apply to numbered armies. A numbered army is defined by consisting of multiple corps.
Theoretically, you could have 2 Corps, consisting of 2 Divisions, each of 2×5,000 man brigades (40,000 men + Corps and Army troops making it about 50,000) and you’d still have a numbered Army.
Very true.
That thing about an Army ‘has to have over 100,000 men’ is a very old (and loose) definition or guideline. I think this thought was in vogue in WW2 and well before.
Eighth Army at the time of the Battle of El Alamein was 118,000 strong.
As you say, a numbered army nowadays (not that they are commonplace!) could easily be less than 100,000 strong.
Its rather pointless saying that ‘we don’t have an army’ (just because its reg component is under 100k) – there are only four armies of the 31 in NATO that are over 100,000 regs. (US, France, Greece, Turkey).
If I recall that was one anonymous Usonian.
And it followed a repeated pattern similar anonymous voices saying similar things anonymously in newspapers just before the previous several defence reviews.
One of the reasons I took redundancy back in 93 was that I thought a 27k cut was too extreme and just stretch us too far. Here we are 30 years later still following the same line. My youngest son joined up in 2002 but there’s no way I would recommend a life in the army now. I don’t care how technical or advanced they say they are getting, who’s going to back you up in a tight spot, not some frigging bean counter in Whitehall that’s for sure.
My biggest concern is number cutting – your son may agree with my following comment since he served/is serving so recently.
Currently we sit at approximately 76k sp in the Army. From those numbers a very few are traditional teeth arms. Far more are support or fulfilling CSS roles at some level or other.
And within the teeth arm, many are limited deployability/ non deployables still held within corps and regiments. This means deployable fighting force is cut again. On paper, you have X amount. In reality you have Y.
We see it even during MACA tasking where it is the same faces always tasked – or during trawls. This leads to burnout across the remaining number of SP, who either then go sick or sign off, increasing the pressure again on SP.
The army can easily recruit. It just approaches it in the absolutely wrong way. And their focus groups or recruitment consultants are so out of touch with the mentality of solider it is painful.
Absolutely this, Spot on post. My grandfather served in both WW’s, my father did 27 years from 35 -62, my brother did 25 and myself 20. Its painful to watch how our services are being mismanaged and starved of equipment. If the events in Ukraine are not a wake up call I dont know what is. Our boys need to know they are valued and well supported. Words are cheap, deeds not so much.
Where they started in the IT Service sector, those recruiters are known a Crapita..
The teeth to tail ratio has reduced (more support) as the army has got more technical since WW2. Somewhere there is a table showing the %age of the British army by capbadge – but I can no longer find it.
Combat Arms (Teeth arms). I recall that INF(includingParas of course) is about 25% (the largest %age). Also RAC and AAC.
Combat Support (CS) Arms – RA and RE. [Years ago some considered the INT CORPS to be CS]
Combat Service Support (CSS) – everyone else. RLC is about 15% of the army. REME is about 9-10%.
[Note. The US considers the Combat Arms to be Infantry, Field Artillery, Aviation, Air Defense Artillery, Armor, Engineers (depending on unit role), and Special Forces].
Quantity has a quality of its own
WE spray cash to foreign states who are not our friends, we spray cash at illegal migrants, we spray cash at our MP’s and their gold plated benefits but we wont spend enough on our own defense? Utter madness. We will all pay a heavy price for this ongoing madness.
Soon to be doing the rounds as a Facebook meme.
In the current state of affairs i.e. knife crime, migration, low numbers of British armed personnel. I believe National Service should be reinstated with immediate affect. Would help remedy many issues.
Totally agree
National service would achieve nothing, it only serves to spend vast sums of money baby sitting conscripts who don’t want to be there for a year and showing them the door once they’ve achieved a basic level of training. If the army wants more personnel it needs better recruitment and more money, not conscripts, there’s a reason we stopped national service in the middle of the cold war. It would also be political suicide for whoever proposes it.
What a joke this government is reducing the army is asking for trouble. I found out that the soldiers are leaving in droves from the Army. If they do this we should withdraw from all over the world and just defend the UK and let the others defend themselves. This lot in power couldn’t beat eggs. We are no longer a world power just a little fish in a big sea
Number’s are a concern but no point in seeking more people if The Army can’t properly resource and equip the units it has!
I said similar earlier, but my post never appeared. Maybe me not sending properly, who knows.
Anyway, first step must be removing Capita and restoring AFCOs.
We can not get to The establishment figure of 82K, and have been below it in the mid 75,76ks for a while.
I understand Regiments of the RLC and RAMC have been disbanded due to inability to resource.
Pathetic; god help us if we need the army (I should say Corps as an Army is 150,000 minimum) to go to war:
I feel we should be strong with the war in ukraine all three should be substantial even if we go to conscription for 2years with choice between military or civil service
The army has a net loss of 1300 troops each year even though training regiments are at capacity. They aren’t deciding to cut numbers, it’s happening and they can’t stop it. Better to say it was their decision than to look bad and have people realise that the military has a serious leadership issue.
The 1300 – lost from training units?
Is the government on the same planet as the rest of us?
Because the world is becoming more peaceful, right?, Will our politicians ever learn ?
So HMG has reviewed the lessons that can be learned from the current European war and the main one is seemingly that you need fewer men and fewer tanks and a single warfighting division with only two true manouevre brigades incorporating Armoured Infantry!
Also, what happened to the plan to increase the Army Reserve to 35k?
That was also a 2010 vow, increasing reserves. An old old excuse not made reality then either.
As we are all aware, Britain is an island nation. As an island nation, bean counters believe we only need a small army, to protect OURSELVES. (christ we cant even cope with a migrant invasion)
Those same bean counters, believe if we can supply some pretty high tech ships, and some aircraft, that fulfils our NATO commitments. Those same bean counters believe that it is up the other NATO countries to supply the ground troops.
I am probably wrong, but I believe the Army is currently a shade below 73,000.
In conclusion, nothing has been learned from the Ukraine conflict, in regard to the size of the Army. Why? probably because too many ‘defence experts’, rely too much, on the fact that we are after all… an Island Nation.
That would have a semblence of credibility if we ONLY ever required the Army to defence the UK.
We don’t -& I doubt we ever will as It makes us far too insular and raises our lack of credibility on the world stage.
Theres plenty (some even on here) however that will bring that old trope out when it suits.
The Army really doesn’t focus on defence of the UK (Military Home Defence). I doubt we have done a serious MHD exercise since Ex Brave Defender in 1985. Ex Brave Defender II planned for 1988 was cancelled.
To me, the Armys three pillars in its raison d’etre: are Expeditionary Operations; Support to Allies; and support to Other Government Departments (MACC/MACA/MACP).
Hi Tom
I think it’s 76,000 something. Well below establishment of 82k.
I think 80,82k should be the realistic size but we cannot resource what we have as it is, through crappy things like Capita.
So I myself look at what brigades we can deploy.
Be it 76k, 73k, deployable brigades should be the benchmark as so much of an army’s headline figure is by design not deployable.
The island nation point brings another issue to the fore we’ve discussed before. Maritime first, army first? Neither? A mix?
I support RN, RAF first, but even I want to see a bigger army with a minimum of 1 deployable division to be somebody in NATO, plus the other organisations in 1
UK, the Field Army Troops, and other areas along with it.
Army lads like Graham and Dern will say army first, and rightly point out that it is an army that wins a war, which I must concede to them as being true.
At the moment, investment is going into all 3 services so I don’t see a preference by HMG or MoD for any one.
Hi Daniel
I agree with all that you say to be honest. My ‘logic’ in this case is based purely on the devious, sneaky, conniving individuals, that bean counters and lots of MP’s unfortunately are.
Cartlidge who seems to be an up and coming ‘star’ at the MOD, is a devious, slimy, underhanded, lying, conniving git. That’s based on involvement I have had with him over the past 8 years.
Politics at high level is not really about helping constituents any more. It’s about survival of the fittest.
Evening Tom
I agree with your assessment of the political class! As for your Cartlidge comments, noted. We need to keep an eye on him then.
I am sure all here are aware that we are not so introspective that we think that the sole role of our armed forces is to defend the UK base. We have been Global Britain for more than 5 years or so, when the slogan emerged. We have always done expeditionary operations over centuries.
Our Island Nation status does not dictate the role, size, structure or equipment of our armed forces. We wouldn’t have a blue-water navy including two amazing carriers if we just had to defend territorial waters. Similarly the army does not exist just to do Military Home Defence – in fact it isn’t really orientated to doing that at all. Perhaps it’s because invasion by a foreign power is scarcely credible.
It’s not wrong to say that we should be able to rely on other NATO countries to bring the ground forces just as much as they will rely on us to bring the air and naval forces, one of the big strengths of NATO is that every country can play to its strengths.
A Challenger 2 isn’t much use to us when Russia is a continent away just as much as an Astute submarine wouldn’t be much use to Estonia if Russia was crossing their border.
What an embarrassment, between Whitehall and downing Street they keep making a mockery of our armed forces we must be in the low thirties on troop sizes, thankfully our guys cope better than most above them in numbers,much like our nurses and doctors employ less and work em harder
I don’t think we have an army to reduce from. What is supposed to happen??? I know…we hope that some BEF can hold the lines whilst getting partially wiped out the remnants then being rescued by a load of little boats. Meanwhile the Royal Navy saves the day by having to launch nuclear missiles because it too is starved of funding. Incidentally, their use will require the permission of the US. They already think they have saved the world and are not pro British. This leaves the RAF. Again same old story…or should we replace planes with drones…only successive blinkered governments designing by committees could reduce our armed forces to a veneer of effectiveness.
People should stop worrying about the state of our armed forces. Just be poor & happy. The big plan was for a small expeditionary force. It will be run, but not funded by non- elected EU bureaucrats. BREXIT slowed it down, but hasn’t stopped it. The master plan just keeps on rolling. 2030, political puppets governed by their corporate masters. Don’t believe me, open your eyes. Oil prices have gone up because OPEC want more money from you, there producing less to create a higher price. Also no tax payers money to the wind farm shareholders for when the wind don’t blow. They don’t like it. So they don’t invest. Its all a big game. Its your money they play with. Great! You get what you vote for…..
If this reduction was due to operational requirements and reflected higher standards then ok, but if it’s just to pretend that a short fall is our intention, not so much!
Defence of the Realm, enjoying a huge race to the bottom of a credable force. More worried about ticking boxes, then defending the UK.
What makes it even worse, is the numbers don’t reflect, the reality of fit for role, trained and fully fit to fight.
That’s of course, without saying that we haven’t got the equipment to issue to them or it still even works or modern enough to defend against a tier level opponent.
To call it a Army you need to have 130000 men
Where do you get that notion from?
To pursue such a policy in these times is truly ridiculous. To then try and convince us that it’s for the best by dropping in words like ‘flexible’ and ‘agile’ is an insult. Literally the whole of the West is going in a different direction with manpower but it seems like we know best. After all, there is an NHS to fund, which is what this boils down to.
It would hardly be surprising if the army was struggling to recruit its establishment numbers. With the endless cuts, it no longer looks a great career choice and disillusioned vets are no longer automatic recruiting sergeants. Couple that with hopeless Capita and a practically invisible recruiting campaign and of course new entrant numbers are going to suffer.
But I don’t think that is the full picture at all. Army numbers are falling as a result of deliberate cut-backs – we had 8 fine infantry battalions, which have been halved in size and rebadged, for political consumption, as SFABs and Rangers. That is close on 2,500 soldiers axed. As infantry numbers are 25% of the total army, that means 7,000 or so troops axed from the other arms and services.
Hence the Treasury achieves the planned cut from 82,500 to.73,000.
The handy thing about recruitment, from the Treasury’s viewpoint, is that, once you have contracted it out/ privatised it, you can have your hired beancounters slow or virtually halt recruitment at your wish, Capita and UKMFTS are just barely competent hired hands and of course they comply.
We have to be very caution about this ‘difficulty of recruiting’ narrative. It has largely been created by HMG’s actions and is now being used to justify further army cuts.
A different, more responsible Government might say, if we have recruiting problems, we need to tackle and solve it. Improve terms of service, better accommodation, get rid of Capita, invest a good deal more in recruitment advertising (both message and scale), create and stick to an ORBAT that assures the retention and increase of batallions and regiments, and so on.
Defence of the realm is far too important to be dictated by accountants and assorted beancounters in Treasury and MOD, which is how defence is now run.
Morning mate.
“But I don’t think that is the full picture at all. Army numbers are falling as a result of deliberate cut-backs – we had 8 fine infantry battalions, which have been halved in size and rebadged, for political consumption, as SFABs and Rangers. That is close on 2,500 soldiers axed. As infantry numbers are 25% of the total army, that means 7,000 or so troops axed from the other arms and services.”
It is a bit more complicated and long winded than that. I think it goes back to the 2010 plan of the reserves finding a Company ( or was it a Platoon?? ) for each Light Infantry Battalion on deployment, after the big reductions then reduced the manpower in those battalions and all across the army.
That did not work out at all, as predicted. So they have found that manpower to restore Battalions by shifting from the 4 SFAB ones you mention and the 4 Ranger Battalions.
So they have not been “axed” as such but redistributed.
The army has chosen to retain as many battalions as it can. Some call it the “Cap Badge Mafia” at work, and suggest more CS CSS should be formed instead of retaining that number, as clearly we cannot form them into deployable Bdes as the CS CSS don’t exist. I am one of those that would like to see this.
You’re right in saying those 8 are much reduced in size. I’m not a fan of the SFAB idea myself, that to me is indeed just a way to redistribute soldiers while keeping the unit identity. I believe we have had BATT – British Army Training Teams for decades doing this work with other armies, so on the face of it no need for 4 battalions worth.
Unless those men were needed elsewhere.
The Rangers ones are different, and possibly more to do with the perceived strategic situation at the time they were created, that has already changed with the war in Ukraine and renewed emphasis on state on state peer warfare.
Yes, it is another way of grabbing manpower to redistribute to other battalions, but there was seen to be a need for more emphasis on the “Grey Zone” area where China, Russia, terrorist groups, and others operate in Africa and the Middle East against western interests.
That requires not full fat battalions with all the CS CSS but more “Special Operations” type formations, but NOT at SF level. The SF are indeed involved in this murky area, but need help. That was also one reason why the SFSG was formed many years back.
And in creating the Rangers that manpower is redistributed, as mentioned before, to the other battalions to bring them up to strength.
Dern has greater knowledge than me on the Rangers, including insider info, so may be able to shed more light or amend what I may have wrong.
“Hence the Treasury achieves the planned cut from 82,500 to.73,000.”
The army was around 76,000 already, remember, well below the 82,000, and I do not think that manpower reduction has come from the battalions, as I outlined above, but simply inability to recruit to fill the establishment formations we have.
Deliberate? You may well be right, who knows.
It is also interesting to note that I understand the 73,000 figure does not include the Brigade of Gurkhas.
Anyway, just my take on a few of your points. Everything else I’m in total agreement mate. Sort Capita No 1 priority.
Great post. The 73,000 figure also does not include young soldiers in Ph1 training, as I understand.
That is also my understanding mate.
😂 Well always happy to answer specific questions to the best of, if not ability, then at least judgement.
Likewise mate. But considering you actually do the job ( army ) and I don’t, I’m always careful to emphasise that.
I’ve been accused of being pompous, “owning” the site, and worse, too many times. So happy to defer to professionals.
👍
True enough.
But I was mostly saying I’m happy to answer specific questions about the Rangers as far as possible, rather than wax lyrical without knowing what specifically people want to know.
Welp I tired to link to a comment that I made calling you pompus in a tongue and cheek manner. And it’s awaiting approval because of the link XD
But anyway: I was mostly saying I’m happy to answer specific questions about the Rangers as far as possible, rather than wax lyrical without knowing what specifically people want to know.
I know mate.
I saw that pompous comment! 😆
And yet we have two bloody great aircraft carriers floating about having costed us a fortune and we don’t even have enough aircraft to man I d of them…a couple of we’ll positioned missiles and they’re at the bottom of the ocean!
Do you “man” aircraft carriers with aircraft? What aircraft for the carriers do you think we have?
You don’t have much faith in the RNs air defence missiles then? And how do you think these “well positioned missiles” will be targeted?
Do you “man” aircraft carriers with aircraft? Of course not, that would be sexist! However I’d like to scotch rumours of the carriers getting a third lift, for aircraft that can’t decide whether they are fore or aft.
Would that make them “non binary carriers” ? I get lost with this stuff most the time.
“a couple of we’ll positioned missiles” could destroy basically any military system in existence, you don’t choose your equipment based on if it can be destroyed, you choose it based on what capability it grants you, and two carriers grants a serious amount of capability. let’s not forget that we wouldn’t have retaken the Falklands without carriers.
It takes a lot to sink a carrier, when USS Forrestal caught fire (roughly the same size as QE), ten 1,000lbs bombs exploded on her flight deck, yet it survived anyway, and modern damage control is more capable now than it was back then. All that survivability is also irrelevant if a missile can’t make it through the air defences of the escorting ships as well.
Why? Why the hell do we announce to the world that we are reducing our forces??????? Do we think we are that good nobody would ever try to invade us???? Or that no terrorist organisation would be looking for a weak country to attack???? We are an island and need protection it doesn’t matter about allies to help defend us especially once they have moved in! Stop telling the world that our equipment doesn’t work or we are reducing our defence capabilities!
We are done. Any remaining credibility we had with the threat from Russia still no 1 on the agenda has gone. Fewer men, tanks, guns, armoured vehicles. The Americans think our govt is a joke – join the club – and our Chiefs of Staff don’t have guts to resign en masse to highlight the constants lies and BS we are force fed from the clueless Sunak and the MOD.
It’s beyond parody.
Anyhow they can achieve their target by natural wastage by stopping recruiting right now and finish off what morale is left. This gutless PM going crawling to the Putin loving corrupt pile of c*** govt that is India, bribing them with ‘climate change incentives’ is just about the most ridiculous thing even these inept tories have done. God help us!
To be fair… what’s the point of having a massive standing professional army if the likelihood of going to another war is next to zero? Let’s be very honest Russia or China would never attack us, and if we do go to war we’d be part of an alliance of 31 countries. With their special capabilities and specialism. For us, it’s our naval fleet and nuclear submarines; not our land or air forces.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Can you name me a time period in the last hundred years when the UK’s armed forces didn’t war? How long a period did you manage to find? The 1920s were quiet because a generation had recently died in the trenches, and two or three years starting the middle of 1960 were also pretty peaceful for our forces. We were too busy watching Cuba, I suppose. There was a time, after the Cold War and Granby, somewhere between the Good Friday agreement and the World Trade Centre, where there was a glimmer of hope of a better world — UK involvement in Kosovo and Sierra Leone barely counted, and we didn’t spend that long bombing Iraq until it let us hunt for non-existant WMDs — but peace wasn’t to be.
Go back further into history if you like, but it’s the same story. On reflection do you still think the chances of us going to another war is next to zero?
We are twenty three years into this century, have just come out of a twenty year war in Afghanistan and have gone straight into a proxy war with Russia, not to mention ongoing efforts against ISIS, and UN peacekeeping missions in South Sudan, Somalia, Congo and Mali (just to pick on Africa). I think the chances of another war are close to a certainty.
Duncan, Tony Blair alone sent British troops on kinetic combat deployments five times.
Over the last 40 years the stand-out deployments have been the Falklands Conflict, the two Gulf Wars and Afghanistan. If they were not wars, then what were they?
Daft to say we would not send our army to fight another war.
But I agree that the UK is unlikely to be invaded – thats not seriously happened since 1066 – so yes I agree with you. But our army does far more than guarding the homeland – it primarily exists to undertake expeditionary operations.
Remind me when the Navy (who I am very much a supporter of) last engaged in warfighting? The army has undertaken warfighting at least once in every decade since WW2.
*1688.
We always ignore that one.
Thanks Dern. Wrong of me to forget that. The Glorious Revolution. A quite brilliant military operation by the Dutch and the largest amphibious operation in the world until D-Day in 1944.
Wiki: “Devising one of the largest and riskiest military operations in Dutch military history, William III of Orange landed in Brixham, Devon with 20,000 men on 5 November, and advanced on London. As he did so, the Royal Army disintegrated, and James went into exile in France on 23 December”.
The Army is bearing the brunt of these ridiculous cuts. All arms of the UK Armed Forces are under manned and much too small.
We cannot rely on our ‘allies’ especially with the choice of president seen in the US and France – actually we’ve never been able to rely on france no matter what their president!
Is the difference between a theoretical total of 82000 ( not achieved in practice for several years) and 73000 so important? With funded plans for the wholesale and long overdue modernisation of key equipment, will the army not be more capable at the completion of Future Soldier reorganisation than it was in 2021?
The problem is that either total is so much lower than for most of our recent history, that it just seems far too small But too small for what? What exactly do we want our army to be able to do and where? If Germany thinks it only needs an army of @66000 in the light of Russian aggression, should we be concerned about our inability to supply the kind of support that BAOR offered for so many years?
We should not worry overmuch about the opinions of US military chiefs. Apart from the continuation of the Polaris agreement to enable our nuclear deterrent, what benefit do we get from our generally automatic support for the USA? We are large customers for their military equipment but gain no favourable access to the US market.
What we do lack, in contrast to countries like France or Italy is an armed paramilitary force, gendarmerie or carabinieri, that could act as a further reserve for national defence in a crisis. So we would find it particularly difficult to scale up our forces quickly.
I used to write Unit Establishments. With Establishments written around 82,000 then you have an Orbat that is more viable, flexible and robust than if your funded manpower is just 73,000.
With the 82,000 figure you are authorised to procure kit for 82,000 – everything from uniforms to tanks. You can justify 3 armoured regiments, for example.
Your strategies, policies, TTPs can all be based on the ‘bigger’ army – as well as your planning/justification for future barracks, whether to retain or sell off training areas in a certain location etc etc.
What if a war happens and you have a 83,000 Establishment and only 76,500 people in reality? Not usually a problem unless every one of those 83,000 are meant to go off and fight the Russians or whoever – then you will be embarrassed.
However, the chances of the entire reg army being stood up and deployed ie every single unit in the Field Force – is nil except for General War (ie WW3) – and even then the nature of that war may not require certain units involvement. If you do need the ‘Full Monty’ then the reg army have access to up to 30,000 in the Army Reserve and then up to 7,000 Regular Reservists, as ‘Polyfilla’. That should do it.
The above is unlikely but what if we did another Gulf War requiring 30k-40k troops and certain units were under-strength? Those units would be allocated manpower from units not rostered to deploy – there might be some recourse to AR but not so much.
This is why we should be bothered about a cut in the Authorised manpower figure by 10,000. Orbats will shrink by 10,000 posts – ‘surplus’ equipment, weapons and uniforms will be sold off or scrapped. Planning, strategy, TTP would all be written for the small-scale and the large-scale experience would atrophy.
To take a civilan analogy if HMG cut the authorised headcount number of teachers across the country by 10,000 – then DfE will definitely close a large number of schools, sell off classroom IT and other educational equipment. Better to keep all the schools in place and accept some undermanning in certain schools even if that lasts for some years…and to improve recruiting & retention. [My analogy is a bad one…a government that did that would lose a vote of no confidence in the Commons and be facing a General Election in a few weeks, which they would lose! Seems only Defence is liable to constant, large cutbacks]
I get that an official reduction in authorized headcount as opposed to a temporary shortfall in actual numbers will have the effects you describe. It locks us into a lower base total. What I was trying to say was that by comparison with what we took for granted in the past, BOTH 82000 and 73000 look worryingly small.
The forces we deployed in GW2 and in Afghanistan out of a significantly larger army were even at the time too small for the tasks. We lost control of Basra and couldn’t pacify Helmand. If we are now unable to generate a full armoured division for overseas operations, we have to ensure we do not risk similar commitments again. If we wanted to continue to conduct such operations, then neither 82000 or 73000 would be sufficient.
It’s worth noting that in 2006, with ongoing operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Army and Marines had to call up reserves including National Guards to make up the force numbers required.
With a 73,000 reg figure, that is probably roughly 51,000 in the Field Force and the balance in what is informally called the Static Org – happy to explain that if you like. Not all of those 51,000 will be deployable. I guess about 45,000 would be physically deployable, but certain other commitments/activities would have to be dropped or pared back.
We certainly needed an Inf Div in Helmand but started with a mere BG (with HQ 16AA Bde as ‘top cover’), and evolved to a bde gp. The Yanks had to bail us out – I was at Bastion for the Obama surge and was heavily involved in planning the expansion of Bastion, the upgrade of the airfield and facilitating the work of the amazing Sea Bees who were contructing the nearby USMC Base (Camp Leatherneck).
It has long been said that we would be able to deploy the warfighting div (3xx) from 2025 – [but there would still be lots of old equipment and some capability gaps].
Use of Reserves on deployments is nothing new for the British Army.
Very informative, thanks. I have read elsewhere that the reduction to 73000 might make it virtually impossible to field a full division overseas. But Future Soldier has 3rd Division with 2 heavy BCTs plus Deep Recce BCT. 1st Div will be home to the light non special force units. It all looks quite sensible, and funding for new equipment is in place, even though FOC for Boxer has slipped.
But it is a pretty minimal force with little depth. That is really the consequence of earlier reductions to 82000 rather than the latest one to 73000.
Peter, You are right that some commentators said that, including the Telegraph which is nowadyas notoriously bad on Defence matters.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/02/while-putin-gathers-strength-britain-is-disarming-itself/#Echobox=1685707991-1
But it makes no sense. The FS Orbat shows a funded warfighting div (3xx) – so why might it not be able to deploy? It clearly could not deploy today with Ajax, Boxers and CR3 as those equipments are not in the Field Force – but it could deploy with the equipment that it has today. There would be capability gaps of course and that is why MoD has siad for a number of years that we would not be able to deploy 3xx until 2025. Whether you have todays numbers of 76,500 regs (actual strength) or future numbers of 73,000 – then you can deploy a division of 10-15,000 troops – just that it makes sense to close out capability gaps, buy some more ammunition and missiles etc first.
Options for Change in summer 1990 cut the army from 160,000 to 120,000 – deemed to be the right size for the post-Cold War army. Since then ‘savings measures’ have been taken which cut the army further to 102,000 then 95,000 then 82,000 and now to 73,000. All of those cuts have had a major impact on the army’s structure (Orbat), capability and probably readiness. The promised increase of the AR from 30,000 established posts to 35,000 was quietly dropped.
Hmmmm, good post, and makes me reconsider my position when you explain the wider implications re establishment, as I like to look at what Bdes we can deploy rather than a headline figure.
But the way you put it makes sense.
Thanks. I believe the FS Orbat is predicated on the 73,000 regs figure? An Orbat for the current 82,000 figure will be much stronger – should have all CS/CSS gaps you often mention, filled – and would include the third armoured regt of course!
What a cluster.
Q. Do you know how many SSNs are on patrol at the moment.
A. We always have one at sea but the MoD don’t release sensitive information…
Q. How many T23s are serviceable and ready for sea?
A. Confidential information.
Then her minder jumped down my throat.
Then
A. My husband works at BAE, they don’t have a clue what they are making…
Changed subject…
Sorry guys, I tried.
Should be one SSN shadowing and protecting the CASD ‘bomber’.
Candidate Labour MP for Barrow in Furness. Not a scoobies about defence.
Her marketing literature asks you to pick your three top issues, in order:
Brexit
Education
Jobs
Social care
Crime
Housing
NHS
Transport
Economy
Immigration
Rising cost of Living
Note, they could have added Defence, but, didn’t.
And BAE workers don’t know the difference between a Bomber and an attack boat, apparently.
I’m doubtful that our SSN do that myself. Always believed the bombers go it alone as they’re so stealthy and slow moving.
I may be wrong. And we won’t know the true answer I suspect.
Bit worried that someone working on Defence equipment at BAE doesn’t know what they are making. Really?
No, it’s a potential Labour MP with not an iota of interest in Defence, blagging it.
Despite being bullied by her minder from Barrow, I told her:
“You don’t have a scoobies on defence, do you?”
She laughed it off and lost my vote.
And now, I’d love everyone to know that as a veteran, it costs a whopping £3 – A YEAR, to be a Labour Party member and the Party needs a kick in the arse from Veterans wrt Defence.
Good try David.
To be fair, I doubt many MPs or candidates from other parties would do better, though I think there is more defence experience in the Conservatives than Labour.
Someone suggested once every MP do a few weeks in the service of their choice to learn basics.
I once helped to host a visit to the Falklands by the All-Party Parliamentary Defence Group (or something like that) in 1999 when I was on a 6-monther down there. This was no pointless ‘jolly’ or ‘a swan’ (as we used to say) for them. I was quite impressed with the group which included by chance, the MP from my home town of Crawley. They were with us for about a week as I recall and they got a very good grounding in all that we did, including doing some very low flying with sharp banking turns in a Chinook and watching some of the troops fire 0.50 Browning on an improvised range in the countryside. They each had a room in the ‘Death Star’ with us rather than a hotel in Stanley. Hosts such as myself socialised with them in the evening and had meals with them.
Pity they were just back-benchers with zero influence.
Would it have made any difference if it was 80000 regulars and 20000 reserves? Why the 70000/30000 split?
And can any surplus soldiers consider reskilling joining the Navy if there’s a personnel shortage there?
CGS farewell. What about the Nepalese Army Brigade numbering approx 4000 Nepalese nationals recruited in Nepal now serving in the British Army. Consists of 2 Nepalese Infantry Bns, 1 Logistics Bn, RE and R Sigs Sqns not to mention the 1000 Nepalese soldiers serving in British Army Units. Our UK cities are full of British youth who cannot get past the Appalling Capita Recruitment processes often pulling out to join after over 1 year waiting . UK MOD is giving priority Nepal Citizens of Nepal very year to join UK Army RAF and RN units and leaving bright young men and women in our UK cities without a chance of a career. Nepalese soldiers now comprise 6% of total Army Strength. These Nepalese Army units should be disbanded. Many British Regiments were disbanded only 15 years ago in favour of Nepalese Regiments who only exclusively recruit in Nepal. This has to change.