A new report from the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee has raised concerns about the capability of the British Army, concluding that its current size is inadequate to meet NATO commitments and sustain large-scale conflict, particularly in light of lessons learned from the war in Ukraine.
The report, titled “Ukraine: A Wake-Up Call”, outlines significant gaps in the UK’s defence posture and calls for urgent reforms to ensure the British military is prepared to counter growing threats from Russia.
Chaired by Lord de Mauley, the committee launched the inquiry in February 2024—two years after Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine—with the goal of assessing the conflict’s implications for UK defence policy.
The report criticises the UK’s current defence capabilities and warns that successive governments have allowed a gap to emerge between the UK’s global power ambitions and the reality of its military readiness.
In his comments, Lord de Mauley highlighted the critical lessons from the inquiry: “In February 2024, two years after Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the Committee launched an inquiry to draw interim lessons from the conflict and assess its implications for the UK. We identified two key lessons. First, our deterrence strategy towards Russia clearly failed. If we are to restore the credibility of NATO’s nuclear and conventional deterrence posture towards Putin, we must develop a clearer understanding of the reasons for this failure.
“Secondly, the invasion exposed significant weaknesses in both the UK’s and NATO’s military strength, and the UK’s ability to sustain large-scale warfare. Successive governments have attempted to maintain the notion of the UK as a global power, but the war in Ukraine has been a wake-up call, laying bare the gap between that ambition and reality.”
The report paints a concerning picture of the British Army’s ability to contribute adequately to NATO’s deterrence strategy.
It states: “All in all, the evidence we heard points to the current size of the British Army being inadequate. While size is not the only measure of capability, we are concerned that the Army cannot, as currently constituted, make the expected troop contribution to NATO. We therefore question whether the British Army is prepared to meet the growing threat posed by Russia to European security.”
The Committee also called attention to recruitment and retention issues, which have long plagued the Armed Forces. The report urges the new government to tackle these challenges and questioned whether it would follow through with the recommendations from the Haythornthwaite Review, which had proposed changes to streamline recruitment.
The committee said that the current Defence Recruitment System (DRS) is hampered by excessive bureaucracy, particularly in the medical evaluation process, which has become overly cautious, causing unnecessary rejections and delays that deter potential recruits.
“To increase recruitment numbers and enhance the efficiency of the process, the DRS should take a more balanced and risk-tolerant approach to its medical examinations and accelerate the process of resolving marginal cases,” the report recommends.
The committee also warned that the UK’s defence industry is unprepared for sustained conflict due to years of underinvestment. The lack of trust between the government and the defence industry, according to the report, is a significant barrier to increasing output and readiness. The committee called for clearer, long-term commitments from the government to ensure that the defence sector is able to meet the demands of modern warfare.
In addition to concerns about the Army’s size, the report highlighted the importance of air superiority, noting that the conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated the essential role of air defences in preventing prolonged ground conflict. The committee urged the UK to invest more heavily in integrated air and missile defence systems, in cooperation with NATO allies, to strengthen its capabilities.
The report’s findings also highlight the need for the UK to adopt a more holistic approach to national defence, incorporating not just military strength but also greater public engagement and resilience. It points to the Scandinavian “total defence” model as a potential framework, where the entire society plays a role in national security, including critical infrastructure protection.
Ultimately, the report offers a warning that unless immediate action is taken to bolster the UK’s defence posture, the nation will struggle to meet its military obligations in an increasingly dangerous global security environment. “Given the perilous threat environment,” Lord de Mauley said, “the Government must not miss this chance and must commit to spending more on defence and spending better.”
With the launch of the Strategic Defence Review, the Committee urged the government to seize the opportunity to set clear priorities and develop a cohesive defence strategy that draws on all elements of national power, from industry and technology to military reserves and allied cooperation.
The report concludes by calling on the government to act swiftly to address the challenges exposed by the war in Ukraine, as the security of the Euro-Atlantic region and the UK’s own future depend on it.
How much political weight does this report carry?
None. Just a bunch of over privileged Conservatives now strangely awakening to the fact their party cut the armed forces during their 14+ year tenure.
So are all the Labour lords over privileged as well Mr. B?😇
All lords are over privileged.
👍😉
The Army has been shrinking since WW2 – why pick on the last 14 years I wonder.
The public have entrusted the security of the nation now to the Labour party. Let’s hope they can do a little more than moan about the past and hit the ground running and sort out the future.
Not looking good Mark. Labour is doing and probably will do, sod all.
Since Ukraine massively kicked off the call to return defence spending to a safe minimum, nothing has been done, this became even more inflamed by Gaza and the Lebanon , with Iran actually directly attacking Israel..
Still nothing….
Zero interest with Labour….
I’m not sure Israel need (or want) any support from the UK. Israel has been aware ever since the holocaust that it can and should be self-reliant as it fights for it’s own survival. The new Labour Government thought that it can influence Israel but I’m sure they are not listening to the people who understand the relationship the best in whilehall.
It will be interesting to see what if anything will happen under Labour. So far existing Tory policies have been enacted, there have been areas Labour have said will be continued, they have talked about the recruitment shortage and how to fix it and major long term projects should be safe because by the time they are paid for there will probably be a new administration.
🙏
Really because the last fourteen – sixteen years is when the world turned, it unfortunately coincided with austerity as these things do..but essentially the big issue is the our government has not reacted in an appropriate way…
before 2008 although there were some signs that all was not as the end of history brigade thought it would be…everyone really still thought the west had won…
late 2008 saw that start to crumble, when the whispers became a shout and Putin invaded his first European nation, when he invaded Georgia.
mid 2009 saw officially china put into policy the 9 dash line and essentially claim the china seas.
So all the assessments for 2010 showed the peace dividend was over and we were heading into a new age of great powers dispute
instead of a reversal of the Labour parties over playing the peace dividend..we saw instead the most damaging defence review in a lifetime.
next we move to 2013 – 2014…Xi becomes the leader of China in 13 and by 2014 has set china on a path to massive levels of military development, and Russia invades Ukraines..essentially a new Cold War has set in.
2017 the 19 party congress in china..erases decades of rapprochement with the west..turns Xi into a dictator for life and essentially turns him into the new Mao..as china beings is new long March. The cold was was entrenched and our enemies began political warfare against the west.
2022, the 14th Five year plan essentially puts china into a war footing..moving all parts of the state and economy ready for war by 2027. Russia invades the rest of Ukraine and threats the west with nuclear war..our enemies essentially told us they are come for the west.
OK point taken. The Government of the time would have argued that the spending priorities were down to the financial meltdown in 2008. Hindsight would have told us that the Government spending cuts were too harsh but would not have explained if an alternative path would have put us in a better place..
Hi Mark, As I said unfortunately the massive uptick in geostrategic risk of a European or pacific was was co terminus with the requirements of austerity…but that is not actually that uncommon..the Great Depression was co-terminus with the risk of the third Reich, yet we massively rearmed when that risk developed. The management of depression and ensuring massive levels of deterrent was a fundamental part of the Cold War..and a good portion of the Cold War involved the west being in a depression..while still spending 6-7% GDP on its military deterrent..infact the Cold War was won by the side that was in the end able to best manage depression with very significant military spending and running a huge military (it was a depressing war 😵💫).
So for me austerity and depression cannot be used as an excuse for not rearming and instead cutting during a time of increased geostrategic risk of a major or world war…after all a world war will essentially kill your entire economy and deterrent of that and ensuring it is winnable is the primary function of government.
Some of that shrinkage since WW2 was justified – end of Empire and colonial garrisons and associated bushfire wars, then end of the Cold War.
The Options for Change defence review of summer 1990 was the last time the army was cut for rational Threat-centric reasons. Cut to just 120,000 regulars, two fully deployable divisions, 386 tanks.
It is cuts since then, not just the last 14 years, that all should be concerned about.
Point taken Graham. The interesting thing so far as I’m concerned is that the UK has since 1990 sought to modernise it’s kit (starting with the RN) whilst our enemies seem to have the bulk of their military forces frozen in time – dating back to the cold war era. The main issue in the UK is the new kit needs has not perhaps been built in sufficient quantity.
The army has not been good about regularly and significantly upgrading in-service kit, especially AFVs and artillery, since probably the late 70s. Operative words here are regularly and significantly, before anyone points out some minor and infrequent upgrade activity.
New replacement equipment is a different subject and I agree that order quantities have progressively declined. We also don’t keep any of the superseded equipment in reserve, unlike many other countries.
The argument that mass isn’t important in winning a war has been promoted by many politicians in the past arguing that more sophisticated equipment makes up for lack of mass. This argument has not been debunked by senior military leaders who should know better but they appear to not want to rock the boat because of their careers or they feel its their job to make the best of a bad job. It’s now probably too late to turn this small supertanker around quickly and the public seem not care as long we can show our might thro the Red Arrows, large carriers sailing around the world (with insufficient aircraft) or trooping the colour, they don’t bother with the detail. Some may even believe that should a shooting war start in Western Europe we can order more kit quickly and build up our defences in a week or two!! They do not understand understand the value of real conventional deterrence and a need to demonstrate that we can sustain active defence for weeks and will inflict unacceptable losses in a fight which can only be achieved with mass.
I would have said the 97 review was that last sensible review ( that was never followed with the resources needed). But I will take your word and operational knowledge on that one..but in your mind what were the big failings in the 97 review ?
I agree that Blair’s first review, a very lengthy one started in 1997 and not finished until 1998, was thorough and reasonably sane. It was a revelation to be foreign policy-led and not Treasury-driven. But I think it painted a picture of reduced Threat when that was less than convincing.
I was one of many staff officers who implemented the SDR. I reorganised all REME TA Establishments.
I am on holiday at the moment so I will reply another time with some detailed comments on it.
Firstly on the army side, we lost a deployable brigade by the merger of 5 AB Bde with 24 Airmob Bde to create a quite strong 16 AA Bde. Not that sure of the logic of that amalgamation. Looks like the posts left over were allocated elesewhere rather than redundancy notices being issued so at least the reg army strength overall was not hit. Always bad when you lose a brigade.
Army was left with just 7 significant deployable bdes – 3 armoured, 3 mech, 1 AA.
The TA was savagely cut back, reducing from 56,000 to a mere 42,000 – again with no logic and no reduction in Threat.
The armoured regiments were restructured sensibly going from 8 x Type 38 units to 6 x Type 58 – that resulted in 348 tanks in front line units rather than a mere 304!
Also sensible was to continue moving troops back from Germany to UK. I think this review gave the army extra Rapier FUs as the RAF Regiment decided they no longer wnted to shoot down enemy aircraft!
As per my last post, the army did not get the promise of any new equipment or upgrades to exisiting equipment. There was therefore no need to resource anything on the army side.
Turning to the Navy. The new Labour Government initiated the super-carrier project – 2 of those to replace the 3 x Invincible Class.
The ‘offset’ was that the Navy had to give up three Type 22 Batch 2 frigates and they were duly decommissioned with just 13-16 years commissioned service under their belts. Thus just 32 escorts remained. Also lost were 3 minehunters reducng that fleet to 22 and 2 SSNs to be decommissioned leaving just 10 in the fleet, but offsetting that was that all would be TLAM-capable.
Trident warheads reduced from 300 to about 200, with the CASD bomber being reduced from 96 to 48 warheads. An accleration of the WE.177 tactical nuclear weapon was ordered.
The FAAs Harriers were placed under the new Joint Force Harrier construct with the RAF ones. I still find it strange that the RAF had (back to the Falklands conflict) and still have a carrier role.
As well as the new carrier project the other uplift was the stated intention to order 6 x Point class sealifters.
In terms of not resourcing the improvements, which were just the new carriers and the Points, I think the Point class acquisition came down at some point in the future to just 4 ships.
Good summery.
Even the lauded 97 review resulted in cuts, a point I’ve made here all too often.
It is a cross party committee, which includes many former senior military peers.
4x Torries… 2x Lib Dems, 3x Labs and 2x X-Benchers… I wouldn’t call that a bunch.
But I do agree that these reports do not hold nearly as much weight as they should and get broadly ignored by decision makers. More useful for stoking the media towards certain points of view.
Also agree in all likelihood these lords are over privileged. Especially Lord de Mauley who sits as a hereditary (and likely won’t have a role come the revolution), but at least he actually turns up and does ‘some’ work (chairs a senior committee) for his £361. Although I think as chair of a committee, he would actually be one of the few to draw a salary.
And yes it is enjoyable to see the opposition benches starting to realise how much their own Cabinet was keeping from them in terms of Defence, Finance and Home Office damage was done.
Apologies for the minor challenge, the Lords is a particular point of pedantic frustration for me.
But agree to 3/4 points 😀
Cheers NDG
That depends how the Monarch reacts and generates public support. It could in all reality go either way.
What George? The King does not interfere in any way in politics. That is all in the hands of his Government which were appointed by him but choosen by the public.
Exactly my point. If King Charles spoke live to the nation and highlighted the dire state of HM Forces and leaking borders. Rendering our hard pressed military unfit for purpose, placing us at risk. Explaining that as King it was His duty to speak up. Emphasising that the current plight was entirely due to mismanagement of funds by every government since the end of the Cold War. Regardless of party. Warning His subjects that their elected governments had shirked the number one duty of defending the realm. What do you think would happen next?
In a democracy like ours, public opinion is paramount. Few people can influence British subjects like the Monarch. I hope that better explains my thoughts.
If he did that he would be in breach of his constiutional role as monarch by commenting on political matters which are the sole responsibility of successive Governments over the years. He is within his rights to warn a Government (in private) and express his opinion (again in private) however to do so in public would be unconstitutional and as his late Mother proved throughout her lifetime the Prime Minister’s weekly audiences with the monarch concerned many important matters of state but the contents of those conversations were taken to the grave, in all cases, and should never and will never be aired in public.
The Monarch has an important role to play in Government and it plays it well however we must never forget the parliament is sovereign and if we want better Government we should elect less numpties.
Not much. It is part of their role to research and report so that it guides their decision making in the upper chamber. At the moment Labour have a sizable majority allowing them to do much as they please.
None, it’s the usual nonsense, when was the peace time British army ever large enough to sustain a large scale conflict? Answer never
It’s crap like this where former Generals try to measure the required size of the army in a vaccum that turns the treasury off funding.
They could double the size of the army tomorrow and they would still be saying it’s not large enough to sustain large scale operations.
…I think the BAOR would like a word with you.
To be fair the BAOR was only designed to fight and win a long war up until the end of the 1950s, from the 1960s onward it was not designed to fight a Long war, the British army of the 1960s was half the size of the late 1940s and 1950s army, and you can track decline in numbers pretty directly with the point the west could obliterate Russia with atomic weapons. From the 1960s it was designed to essentially sacrifice itself to give time for negotiations before either the USSR backed away or the west burnt it down In nuclear fire, the BAOR and other forces on the inner German boarder after 1960 were never meant to win..just fight and die until the USSR hit the French boarder and MAD was kicked off or the USSR realised it did not want to die.
It was, up until around 1960. At the 300,000 to 400,000 mark ( the west was pretty convinced the USSR was going to try for the whole of Europe at that point and they would pretty much fight a conventional war..with some use of tactical nuclear weapons..the late 1950s early 1960s saw a draw down of the army to the the 200,000 to 150,0000 as policy and the theory of war moved to a point where the west felt it only needed a “holding” army to give pause before it burned the USSR in nuclear fire if the USR did not back away..the wests obsession with the short war theory then survived through the remanded of the Cold War and was re-enforced by iraq 1 and 2…trouble is it sort of ignored the Vietnam war ( a long war the west lost ), iraq 2 which dragged on for 8.5 years and arguably the west did not win, Syria a war the west hardly even turned up for and Afghanistan another long war the west lost ( essentially most rational observers could say the west is no longer capable of winning a long war, china seems to think that’s the case).
This is hardly news. Everyone with any knowledge about defence matters knows our armed forces are too small. The hillarious fact these Conservative Lords are now declaring a need for urgent action after their chums were in power for 14+ years and did nothing but austerity and cuts makes me laugh.
It should make us all scream with anger! I’m afraid the serving military and veterans community sat back and let it happen. The first duty of every government must always be defence. I’m not going to insult your intelligence be explaining why.
George, I served 1975-2009, then of course became a veteran. In what way could I or colleagues have let Defence cuts happen?
Cuts are imposed by our political masters, generally without a reduction of Threat as justification, in order to save money which can be switched into the vote-winning areas.
Senior officers of course stress to Ministers that capability and effectiveness will be diminished, but they are overruled every time.
Absolutely with you on your post 👍
Thanks Andrew.
It’s a bit of a national foible to blame the guys in the middle who have no real power and can only do the best they can with what they are given…If you actually blame the people in power, the politicians then you have to ask the question who employed them and that means the British public have to take some accountability….because who would have ever voted to pay another 20-30billion a year in tax to have a good military..when they were instead offered more personal wealth and less personality responsibility.
instead it’s always the “civil servants, generals,,other officer types.managers etc..not constant cuts to the defence budget and treasury lead in year savings…same with the NHS, it’s all the managers faults..or Drs and nurses wanting pay..nothing to do with the fact we pay around 25-30% less on healthcare than most comparable nations and do sod all to take care of ourselves.
Read my reply to Graham. The armed forces are a special case because the very existance of the country is dependant on their ultimate sacrifice.
The blame game here is proportional to rank. The top brass have a duty to inform ministers in no uncertain terms, that they cannot guarantee defence of the realm if the military is underfunded. Nobody else can speak with such authority on the matter. Except perhaps the reigning Monarch.
Moreover, they have a duty to said monarch and British subjects, to inform them of the issues created by their elected representatives too. I know it goes against the grain to be involved in politics but politicians set the budgets.
I’m just bouncing ideas around to give people food for thought. Call it my belated attempt at taking ownership of staying silent for too long. If we all shout long and hard, things will change because we live in a democracy. Every veteran living in GB has an MP. Go see them, write to them. Demand action. Say your vote and voice matters. Either they invest heavily in the armed forces or your vote will go elsewhere. Reform for example, the name terrifies MPs.
“If you don’t spend more on defence I’ll vote for the Russia Today employee.” is not the power play you think it is.
Russia Today employee. You lost me. Please explain.
The power play is uniting and motivating serving personnel and the veterans community, in support of proper funding HMAF. It’s a task akin to herding cats. But it has been done before.
If you don’t know the sordid history of the man behind Reform, and his close ties to Vladimir Putin, then maybe don’t endorse them.
Do you mean Nigel Farage as he was the 60% share holder of the fledgeling party. I’m aware of slanderous unfounded rumours of six figure earnings from RT for appearing on their shows. The same labour MP responsible for the slander, also appeared on RT several times but refused to accept the fee. Was he working for free to aid his former marxist comrades.
Both stories are political spin and skulduggery, nothing more. If there was any truth to it the woke media and the conservatives would have exposed the dirty washing ages ago. BTW I’m not a member of Reform. That could change.
George may dismiss Farage actively working for a hostile state broadcaster and taking huge sums of money in order to try and break apart western institutions that face Russia, but the facts are the facts. Farage is a Putinist operative, and it’s a disgrace he’s in the house. The man should be tried for treason.
Since apparently George KNOWS this about Farage, and still chooses to endorse Reform, then he’s either useful and unthinking, or actively anti-UK.
As I said the man or woman in the middle has almost no power..I have a professional code of conduct I must follow “at all times” as a duty within the law of the land. I’m bound to act by it, that means I am not allowed to in law let some things occur that you as an individual citizen are not held accountable for..I don’t act on some things I can loss my profession and even go to prison. This has mean I have had to in the past resign from posts to stay within my code of conduct, report organisations and individuals to prosecuting bodies as well as professionals bodies….I’m also pretty senior (when I worked across organisations I would have been the equivalent of a assistant secretary/grade 5 when working with the civil service or 1 star with the forces )…but even though I at that level have literally walked in and resigned over a profoundly significant issue, I’ve never ever managed to change anything and what I resigned over still occurred.
It sounds as if the organisation you resigned from lost a good man. You probably slept better at night with a clear conscience too. Humour me with a round of what if?
Now imagine what could have happened if you were not alone in expressing your strength of feeling. Standing shoulder to shoulder, with countless previous occupants of your post. With wide support expressed in the press and HoC/HoL sparked by a disgruntled electorate. Combined with seriously we are not amused backing support from the reigning monarch. Using the official back channels, of course. Do you think that would have made any difference.
Hi Graham – we served roughly the same period but I retired early due to injury/illness hence the war pension. But I’m still British and moaning is my hard won birth right. So here goes.
In this instance, when good men choose to say nothing bad things happen.
You correctly highlight top brass have advised ministers that, effectiveness will suffer if cuts are made. But it’s usually behind closed doors and with all due respect. Never forcibly enough or properly organised in a way designed to influence policy. Rather those politicians have set the branches of HM Armed forces against each other, competing for the biggest slice of an ever decreasing pie.
It is a strength of HM Armed Forces that we do not become involved with politics. Yet it is the politicians who cut budgets and force unreasonable decisions on those senior officers. There’s a saying in my part of the country. “Shy bairns get nowt.” Meaning speak up or go without. Instead of using our unique national standing to influence the nation. We pride ourselves in getting the job done, despite adversity and shortages and brag about it. Yet another double edged sword. I was pleased to watch the rise of Urgent Operational Requirements when equipment was found wanting in the cauldrons of Iraq and Afghanistan. But how much of that was down to stories in the press by concerned relatives of battle casualties.
The blame or should I say responsibility, can be assigned proportionally by rank. To include the reigning monarch I hasten to add.
Only those in the armed forces fully appreciate the implication of defence cuts to operational effectiveness. Only those who have experienced it understand the concept of critical mass. When an army becomes too small to self sustain via recruiting versus natural wastage. Only those who have lived it realise the relationship between force size, promotion prospects and retention of highly talented personnel.
Lets ignore the relationship between the size of Britain’s military and the ability of the nation to maintain a viable military industrial complex, for the moment. But it’s all a numbers game. I hope the explains my previous comment.
What are you suggesting? That we take up our rifles and march on Whitehall? Good grief man, we’re better than that as a society and as armed forces.
Over the last 12 months this site has seen seven calls for a military coup if Labour win the election. Three were from George, the other four from three other people. Of the four people involved three, accounting for six of the calls, have endorsed Reform. I do not think this is coincidence.
Not at all Ma’am. Don’t echo the idiots on here. I know you are more intelligent than that. Please read my replies to both Graham and Jonathan. I care deeply about the integrity of our British society and the armed forces. There is no greater calling than to bear arms for ones King and Country. It’s in the blood.
So not a coup, just advocating for active interference in UK politics by members of HM Armed Forces?
Vociferously raising concerns about national security, in such a way that cannot be ignored. Is not a coup. Neither is informing the electorate of dangerous government funding priorities. I’d call it transparency and acting in the national interest. A duty.
My child, I thought you’d be intelligent enough to see that I’d clarified that you where not arguing for a coup, merely an actively partisan military that is backing certain policies.
Something which, again, is not something we should be aspiring to. The military should remain a-political.
There have been no austerity, it has been the contrary. The UK Government is getting more taxpayers money since Atlee.
There fact there is not enough money for defence is not related to any lack of money in Government.
It’s purely mismanagement of funds and dubious spending priorities. The Armed Forces traditionally stay “above politics.” Yet politicians dictate spending and budgets. If financing defence was outside the remit of HM GOV, things would be much better. Ringfenced and independent of party politics. It’s he safest way to ensure the survival of that we hold dear. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and the essence of Britishness.
The Danish home-guard would be a good model to follow. I think though the reason why the Scandinavian home-guards work is that they are services in their own right. I think more perhaps would join knowing that the efforts would be directed to the home front and they aren’t going off to fight abroad. We do need AA missile system and manning it with part timers could help reduce costs.
The Army is probably about the right size. Just very poorly equipped and organized.
But that of course leaves the RN and RAF which are really, really too small and poorly equipped. But we all know the problems will never be ever addressed.
Probably the right size for what?
We have obligations around the globe. From Australia to Belize and Canada to Oman. As well as trade routes and trading partners to safeguard. GB is the parent nation of the anglosphere.
The UK can only do so much. British Army currently has 33 infantry battalions. If grouped into brigades of three and given supporting cavalry, artillery, and other support elements that would be 11 divisions or 5 corps or 2 army groups. As I said the army is about the right size just not well equipped. How much more do we need?
If I am wrong perhaps you could tell me how big the Army should be? Your comment would have more weight if you had offered up some numbers. As you are saying you know better than me you need to offer some evidence.
This seems to happen on these sites a lot. Somebody offers an opinion. Then somebody else turns up, says the other party is wrong, and then expects the other party to explain themselves. All without offering anything up themselves.
You may have made a mistake in your maths. An infantry battalion (500-750) isn’t a brigade (3500-5000) and three battalions is no division (15,000-20,000). I think you would need to divide by about 6ish – if the battalions were at full strength. They probably aren’t.
I’m no expert and I’ll let others comment further in the reality.
What the actual frick!? 11 Divisions!?
No.
No.
NOoooooooooo.
Let’s do this again: The British Army has 31 Infantry Battalions (33 refers to pre Future Soldier when 3 RGR and 2 Mercian still existed). Of those, 1 is seconded to SFSG, 4 are Ranger Battalions, and another 4 are SFAB’s, and 1 is the experimentation force. That leaves 21 regular Infantry Battalions.
Of those 21 Regular Infantry Battalions, 3 are needed for overseas Garrisons (One of the RGR battalions in Brunei, and 2 Battalions for the Cyprus Garrison).
We are now down to 18 Battalions.
But at least one of those is on Public duties so 17.
Now if we divide them up in a fairly sensible way, the Army gets: 4 Battalions going to 16 Air Assault Brigade. 6 Battalions could theoretically make 3 very small armoured infantry brigades. 6 Battalions could make 2 Light Mechanised Infantry Brigades.
That leaves 1 spare battalion.
That’s 6 Brigades. Or 2 Divisions.
NOT 11
Edit: As it stand the Army is currently organised into 5 Brigades, 2 Armoured Infantry, 2 Light Mech Infantry, and 1 Air Assault, and guess what?
There are not enough supporting troops to deploy all five.
So not only is your maths on divisions wrong, you are doing the classic error of thinking only infantry matters, and that CS and CSS are just “there,” somehow, in the remaining numbers.
Aren’t the Ranger/SFAB battalions glorified companies?
It’s crazy how nearly half the listed battalions aren’t frontline units.
Fair enough, nobody probably expects the UK to take the lead in any future land war in Europe, but that we can’t even deploy an armoured division in support is a joke.
We have declared an armoured division as deployable to NATO, but it is under-equipped with 155mm artillery, its AFVs are mostly 35 to 60 years old and many have not been upgraded, and under-strength units would have to be beefed up from other units outside that division.
And it only has 12 and 20 Bdes as manoeuvre formations. I believe the ideal is 3 for a Division, plus Divisional Troops.
I don’t count DRSB as it cannot deploy without the others.
Yes. Worth saying that in case others don’t know.The reason for three manouevre bdes is partly physics (the strongest shape is a triangle) and partly tactical (if a Div has to cover a wide frontage perhaps in Defence, then two bdes can be deployed forward doing that with the third providing depth in total in triangle shape). If the Div is advancing then one brigade can be leading, with the other two to its rear completing the strong triangle shape and again providing depth.
Additionally, irrespective of the type of activity ie Phase of War, success should always be reinforced by commitment of additional forces, not lack of success. Having three brigades allows this as there will always be some BGs in depth who can race forward to reinforce.
Nope.
And what does Front Line unit mean? Because for example I’d class both Rangers and SFSG as “Front line.”
Also 3 UK division is small, but it’s basically the only unit that has enough enablers to deploy in full.
Thanks Dern. Great answer.
Calm Dern….Calm. 👍
Odd really..the way maths works because I’m pretty sure the way you added up the maths leads directly to exactly what we have..to 6 brigade combat teams and 2 divisions….being pedantic and argumentative I was actually going to respond with a list of all the brigade combat teams and the battalions in them as well as what all the rest were doing..but your way saved time and effort 🤔
Kind of, the Maths gets a bit screwy because 1 DSR is a No Infantry Zone, so yes, you are right, but we should in theory, going by the maths, have 1 more BCT than we do have.
Army “best case” is 6 deployable Brigades in 2 deployable Divisions.
3UK – 1/12/20 ABCT with DRSB reverting back to AI.
Needs a new “set” of CS CSS for 1 ABCT. that 3rd CH2 Reg retained, and 2 Infantry Bns transferred in.
1UK – 16AA/ 7 LM / 4 LI.
Needs a new “set” of CS CSS for 4 Bde and PMV.
The army remains, as always, several Regiments of CS CSS short for this structure, which is actually quite close to that of the French I believe.
Dern showed what was possible with an ORBAT chart. It would take quite an uplift in personnel numbers and yet another reorg.
For me, one of the biggest issues for the army is that it faces never ending reorgs and another wave of changes comes in before all the previous are implemented.
It needs stability.
That is not how the Army could organise itself. 😏
If the tone of my comment caused offence then I apologise dear lady. It was not my intention to be confrontational just moderately astounded.
However, I still wish to know what you consider our land forces (army) are for, before discussing numbers required for the task. Bearing in mind it is widely accepted that we are now in a second Cold War, with potential theatres of operation in Eastern Europe, the Middle and Far East. As well as the Arctic circle and South Atlantic to consider as probable areas at risk.
Perhaps it would help if I offered my rough suggestion. Aiming to quickly return to levels not seen since the very end of National Service days of my father in the late 1950-60s. Lets say 400,000 to include 100,000 conscripts.
120 k troops is the minimum . Army’s start at 100 k troops , we don’t have an army . If you don’t have mass than no Nasty countries fear a ground invasion . Countries can suffer bombs being dropped . France and Germany have larger Army’s . Are they doing it wrong ? 70 k troops can’t fight a ground war . Offence takes the role of defence sometimes and you will get nothing done with those numbers . You are the first person I’ve ever heard quote we have the right number of troops . That should tell you all you need to know .
Armies do not start at 100k troops. Your confusing a Field, or Numbered Army (ie the formation level above a Corps) with “Army” the branch of service.
Throwing a temper tantrum and hurling insults doesn’t change the fact that the definition of an Army as a Branch of service has no lower limit on serving personnel.
Absolute nonsense . You were on here as Stephanie yesterday also . You ain’t got one clue . An army can’t just be any size you want it to be .
We really are wanting to achieve a little more than a home guard. I suspect the population of the country would go apoplectic if that was proposed. Also I think you are incorrect it has generally been the policy over many generations and governments to improve all aspects of our military. It is far from perfect but we are making good progress in most areas.
Also I think you are incorrect it has generally been the policy over many generations and governments to improve all aspects of our military. It is far from perfect but we are making good progress in most areas.
That is a very interesting point of view. I think you are incorrect. If you think UK is making defence your metrics are very different to mine. I think actually you are trolling me.
Stephanie I am simply responding to your posts with a different point of view. The RN, for example, is part way through a modernisation programme which means we now have kit which is far more sophisticated than was possible 20-30-40 years ago. It is not our ambition to simply defend our own country but to be able to go out into the world and assist peace loving nations to protect their own territory. I am simply offerring a different point of view based upon the facts as I see them.
Every country has kit that was far better than 40 years ago . Do you even know the purpose of a Navy ? Influence events on land . The Royal Navy can’t do that . Unless. We are picking on a small nation with poor air defence the Royal Navy can’t do much
We are an island . Everything comes by sea and it needs protected . Go back to sleep
Do not engage , definitely a troll
How is the army about the right size when these well-informed members of the Lords say we cannot meet NATO commitments? Many others have said the army is too small, including the recently departed CGS, Gen Sanders, and just about every other retired senior officer.
In a regular army of 73 000, about 70% will be in the deployable Field Force, say 51 000. Of those at least 12% will not be personally able to deploy. So that leaves a max of 45 000 that could deploy in theory. But that would mean that all other commitments would have to be terminated, some of which would have political repercussions. Literally only WW3 and/or an existential crisis for the UK homeland would require such a drastic turn of events.
If we are instead considering enduring operations, we can no longer deploy a brigade group of regulars over many years, such as we did in Afghanistan, without causing serious damage to the wellbeing and future viability of the army.
All British Warfare is expeditionary. A home guard is a waste of money.
What we do actually need is a very good civil defence organisation..this nation is hopelessly ill equipped to take a hit.
Perhaps, but that would fall far outside the Remit of the MoD, and would look very different from a home guard force of light infantry reservists.
Indeed, but if we had a bit of money for a home guard type force ( which as you say is a waste of money, because we are not being invaded) it would be better focused on a volunteer and professional civil defence force..because we may just one day, get bombed, missiled, dirty bombed, a have nuclear detonation, bio weapon release, chemical weapon release or mass shut down of services via cyber attack…all of which will need serious civil defence capabilities..not the joke civil contingency system we have at present ( which from experience cannot manage a snow day, let alone a fallout cloud cutting across the heart of the country or any other mass casualty event or full service loss).. the whole system is really only designed to sort an event in the region of couple of hundred casualties with no disruption to services ( that was the biggest event I ever practiced running in the last decade). we did sort of have a reasonable civil defence capability before 2010 ( I would annually get shoved into a powered respirator protective suite and have to practice building a CBRN decontamination unit and scrub poor pretend victims) and it was all better put together..but post 2010 the whole system (for what it was)fell apart.
True, all pretty much agreed. Just don’t think this is a job for Defence, rather a Home Office job.
If it’s a defence matter then they need to have some sort of combat role, and that means that their terms of service need to include a clause allowing expeditionary employment.
Personally I would like us to have a ministry of civil defence..the fins have it sorted that way…at present civil defence or what we have of it is a cabinet office responsibility…or should I say cabinet office tick box.Even giving it to the home office would be a step up…but yes giving it to defence would be the wrong place although I suspect if we did get a major CBRN attack..we would see a fair number of light role infantry battalions deployed as there is just no decontamination capacity anywhere anymore …even at the hight of our nations preparedness, for a population of around 1.5 million I believe we had 3 CBRN teams, two NHS and one fire, each of the NHS teams was a team of 6 with one decontamination unit, six suits and two replacement. Respirators for each suite ( for 18 hours activity if I remember correctly from when I was a member)..as of 2010 the NHS decontamination units were never kept up so it dropped to 1 Fire service decontamination unit..for 1.5 million people…which is essentially pointless in any large scale CBRN attack….I remember our chemical and nuclear treatment pods would treat about 20 casualties….with our extra pods coming from pompy if we needed them…which was a joke because pompy would have been target one..although not as bad as one place were they stuck two out of three of the cat 1 responders HQs next to each other on a flood plain…4 miles from a nuclear power station…we really don’t take disaster planning seriously in the country.
the size of the army we need is not really rocket science all you really need to do is look back historically and look at threat size and expectations vs army size.
if we start from 1948 after the WW2 demobilisation…
1948 to 1960 was a time defined by imminent risk of war with the Soviet Union..I time when the Soviet Union was desperate to invade the west and the west knew it..army size 250,000 to 450,000…profound high risk of war in Europe.
1961 to 1990 was a time when the Cold War was still running ( hot ?) but it has stabilised (every one realised they almost died in 1962) and the first shoots of the USSR running out of steam appeared in the 1980s…but world war was alway on the horizon if just below it..army size 160,000 to 200,000…high risk of war in Europe.
1991 to 1996..the peace divided the end of history tippy..no risk of world war ever again.. army moved from 160,000 to 110,000..
1997..2010the peace years moved to the war on terror…actions across the world…deploying across the world fighting terror.
army size 113,000 to 108,000 risk of war in Europe low.
2010…2014 2the rise of the china and a resurgent russia…the world is turning how do we respond army size moves from 110,000 to 90,000 risk of European war low but rising, risk of world war low but rising
2014-2020 ..Russian invaded a European democracy, china moves forward with its plans to take Taiwan one way or another..army size 90,000 to 80,000 risk of European war high risk of pacific war high, risk of world war high
2021…….Russia follows initial invasion with a move for full scale conquest of a European democracy..mobiles 600,000 troops and threatens the west with nuclear weapons. China publishes its new five year plan which is a roadmap to war, china is instructed to be ready for war by 2027…army moves from 80,000 to 72,000. Risk of European war high, risk of pacific and world war very/profoundly high.
so if we were actually reacting to the risks..2010 to 2014 should have seen the army go up from 110,000 not down…2014 should have seen the army moving to 150,000 and if we are taking the risks as they are now we probably would be looking at an moving to an army of 200,000 ( realistically we are “likely” ( over 50% chance) going to be in a world war by the end of the decade).
that’s a basic breakdown of risk vs army size since 1948…
The army is the right size ? The army isn’t an army . Army’s start at one hundred thousands troops , we have a small defence force .it’s not big enough for any ground war . 120 k troops is needed just to be respectable . Mass counts and always will . As for the danish home guard , how is Russian getting on with man power losses due to poorly trained soldiers .
See my point above. You are confusing a Numbered or Field Army for the Branch of service.
A numbered/Field Army is a formation consisting of 2 or more Corps, which by definition tends to place it around the 100,000 personnel mark.Even then, the 100,000 thing is more of a byproduct of how large multiple corps tend to be rather than a strict definition.
For “Army” as a branch of service there is no definitional headcount for something to be considered an Army. This is why the Dutch still have the Royal Army, despite it being 16,000 strong, and the Canadians have the Canadian Army despite it being 22,000 strong. Simply put, for something to be considered an “Army” it simply has to be the top level command of a nations ground forces.
Thanks for showing yourself up.
Another report stating the patently obvious which will join the rest of weighty tombs, stating the patently obvious which will be ignored.
Do these people get paid / claim expenses for making statements that are blindingly obvious to most of us?
It’s laughable mate
It’s going to get even worse as the Two Tier Keir brigade bankrupt Great Britain. Immediately after the Tories pruned the armed forces beyond the point of no return. I can see us begging the Ukrainians for their third hand cast off weapons before joining the que at the ChiCom embassy for food handouts.
UKR should send us all the battlefield scrap (including Russian equipment). We could recycle it into new resources for our own weapons procurement.
Whilst military personnel are an important factor, Ukraine is teaching one important lesson, tactics and top quality equipment are essential on the modern battlefield.
So wim buggered then….
😂 Oh I think we have top quality kit the only question I have is do we have the kit in sufficient quantities.
Oddly I think that if we were resorting to chucking rocks the MOD would provide the very best rocks with a non-slip grip airo-dynamically designed to travel the furthest distance – but we would only get 19.
A report stating the obvious
To small yes the Army is ,and so is the RN and RAF tell us something we don’t already know. Since the end of the cold war all HMG governments Cut ✂ defence seemed like the first pot to Raid from to pass to other departments.Would love to see Ex PMs from 1990s on ward’s explain themselves in front of a committee ,oh and I would throw MR Osborne the Chancellor of 2010 in with is good friend Cameron. Every government play the same old Record Defence of the Realm comes frist ,what a load of 💩. Sorry for the rant guys 🇬🇧
Agreed. I too have “fantasized” about the old PMs explaining themselves.
“First, our deterrence strategy towards Russia clearly failed.”
Urr…did NATO get attacked and I miss it? It shows the opposite. Russia won’t attack NATO but will attack non NATO countries.
“All in all, the evidence we heard points to the current size of the British Army being inadequate.”
It would still be inadequate to fight Russia if it were twice the size. The lack of attention to NATO burden sharing, to different degrees, in different domains is the flaw in most defence commentary. More army please…urr and who is going to do the heavy lifting in the maritime: Poland, Finland, Germany?
Nobody thinks the British Army is required to take on the Russian Army alone. The report is only about the army as that is the weakest of the 3 services.
The army too small argument needs fleshing out. Too small to operate at what scale (Battle group, brigade, brigade group, division, corps) and for how long in combat (3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years). Nevermind at armoured, mechanised or motorised formations. And at what readiness level, a week, a month, a year? We need to be specific and understand what our allies require from us across all domains. We need to see the whole board.
I have often gone back to the baseline set by Options for Change which included considerable analysis as to the size and shape of the post-Cold War army. It concluded that armoured warfare was less likely but we needed a decent capability just in case if a revanchist Russia (so a drop to one armoured div) and another deployable div with a mix of capabilities for everything else. A cut to two divisions, 120,000 regular soldiers and a mere 386 tanks. The two Gulf wars and the two enduring sandbox operations were not predicted but the army just about managed. However the great problem was the overlap for many years of Herrick and Telic, leading to overstretch.
If you don’t like the Options baseline then of course assess things in 2024 and from first principles. In former times a list of Military Tasks was produced against which Troops To Tasks could be done.
All so random now. Clearly we cannot deploy a Corps as we have not had a national Corps for over 30 years. We declare to NATO a warfighting division, but we know it has capability gaps and equipment weaknesses. Still it would deploy, warts and all if it was required. How long for? Several experts have talked about our ammunition stocks and other logistics only being sufficient for a few weeks at Ukraine war levels of usage. That is extremely alarming. Readiness level, sorry but I do not have that info. I would have thought some early movers would be at a number of days notice and the main body of the Div at several weeks notice to deploy. But I might be over-optimistic.
The army at 73,000 and a reduced number of brigades in the Field Force, would not be able to deploy a brigade group on an enduring operation as per Herrick or Tellic. It could only do so by use of Army Reserve personnel and/or RM. Both 1st and 3rd divisions clearly would have to supply troops over the full duration period. Readiness – good question. I do not have such info for multiple brigades. Duration – who knows, all enduring ops are different. Telic was about 8 years. Herrick was about 10 or 12 years and Op Banner was 38 years!
Thanks Graham this is really interesting. Although attrition may be a similar limiting factor other than magazine depth. My problem with all talk about deploying a division, is it’s one shot. Say three months high intensity then it’s spent. What then. Our contribution has to be sustainable. So that means rotating when combat ineffective say every 2 to 3 months. So we’re below divisional scale now. So plan around deployable brigades that can be rotated 3-5 times. But then we need to consider formation type and parent division arrangements. The latter especially is non existent on the debate but it’s how we win.
Thanks mate, certainly deploying the warfighting division would be in a one shot operation against a peer or near-peer opponent. When I served, the yardstick was that a unit or a Formation with combat power reduced by 35% or more was ‘Combat ineffective’ and had to be withdrawn from combat tasks and regenerated.
With the new kit, such as CR3, the Attrition Reserve is very small; not such an issue with the older kit and a great pity that it has mostly not had significant upgrades. Manpower – there is the rest of the Regular Army to draw on, the Army Reserve and what is now called the Strategic Reserve (a bad term for the Regular Reserve of ex-soldiers with an extant reserve liability.) There will be issues with those with specialist skills ie there won’t be many tank crewmen in the rest of the army that I just detailed, just the Royal Wessex Yeomanry in the Army Reserve and the Reg Reserve guys who may not yet have been called up, however that may be enough.
We would not fight the entire div until it is totally spent. Regeneration would be done as each unit or BG was spent. But there would ultimately be an end state, when we run out of bods but that would be a longish time as there are many in the Reg Reserve, I think over 50,000.
People make some dire estimates of our projected casualties, seemingly all based on the war in Ukraine and the drone menace. Our war may not be like that and we have a lot of resources being deployed on dealing with the drone issue.
We have declared 3rd Div to NATO rather than a single roulemont armoured or mechanised brigade. I can’t see that changing for political reasons. We might lose command of the ARRC!
I say let ARRCHQ go, reinvest the gain, fit in with a Nordic or Baltic division. The divisions sustainment will be local anyway. In other words let’s get real about fighting a protracted war as an alliance endeavour. In all domains. Any thoughts on parent NATO formations?
ARRC is a highly significant and capable NATO Corps, arguably the jewel in the crown of its land forces. We supply the Commander and the framework HQ, ie most of the staff posts, the Signal Regiment and maybe some other elements. Our warfighting div is assigned to ARRC. Other nations supply the other divisions of course. Highly prestigious.
Hard for UK to abandon this role. We have to modernise 3 (UK) Div, and some of the plans are bearing fruit (Ajax, CR3, Boxer are all under construction), Archer and SkySabre are in service, a decision has been made on AS90 replacement. So 3 Div’s parent formation is the ARRC. I mentioned that we could supply a good number of Battle Casualty Replacements ie manpower, to keep the Div going for longer, but that destroyed platforms, especially the newer ones, would be harder to replace.
I cannot see HMG declaring to NATO that we would rather commit a brigade instead and guarantee rouling it ‘until the cows come home’. If other nations did that then ARRC would no longer be a Corps and would not have enough manpower and materiel on Day 1 to face a sizable Threat.
Thanks Graham
Bad idea.
If only for personnel reasons it saves little beyond the HQ Staff and the Gurkha ARRC CSS Bn.
1 Div Bde and 104 Log Bdes are assigned and of course are used elsewhere too.
1 Div Bde?
Flipping phone….
1 Signals Brigade.
Regardless of who’s doing the heavy lifting at sea we still needs a bigger army .120 k should be the minimum . France has more troops and. Navy the same size . The U.K. ain’t done the ( heavy lifting ) at sea for a long time
“Given the perilous threat environment,”
“It points to the Scandinavian “total defence” model as a potential framework, where the entire society plays a role in national security, including critical infrastructure protection.”
It is unnecessary and unfeasible for an island 1500 miles from the frontline to sustain this.
You are a troll . You can jog on with the society plays a role . That’s last gasp crap in the middle of a war you are losing cause you never spent enough in the first place .decent well trained army’s stop wars from happening . When will idiots like you learn .
NATO needs to win in all five domains. As an alliance different nations have different levels of burden share based on their geography and chosen capabilities. No doubt Britain could have a top tier manoeuvre force if it could afford it without withering the domains where it actually has strategic advantage and the potential for over matching an enemy. By the way, I think you are criticising my quote from the report.
The country will be bankrupt in a couple of years. What will 2% of GDP be worth then?
Note that bankruptcy 99% of the time is not lack of money, it is no willingness to pay the commitments.
My son lives in Norway and you could argue that its Socialist in that the government has a major say in the day-to-day running of the country (eg government shops that are the only place to buy alcohol above a certain level eg wines etc. – they are I have to say very pleasant places and don’t feel intrusive/big brother in any way). The BIG difference is that its also a very proud nationalist country, for example a majority of homes fly the Norwegian flag or pennant; they have a form of national service (which makes perfect sense to them – the far north being very close to Russia) plus they have a bank holiday where citizens wear the Norwegian costume. Its wonderful to witness and all of these are accepted by the citizens – they appear to love their country. We don’t have that balance and pride unfortunately and that is the problem for all the reasons I’m sure we all understand!.
Nationalism? Careful, I recall Labour politicians calling for that to be rooted out as if it’s some terrible evil. And the individualis still in politics.
I agree.
The English can’t/wont even really support St. Georges day.They’d rather support St Patrick’s day as its means they can get drunk on Guiness…says its all .
What a surprise! All three armed forces have obviously been cut to levels below those needed to meet the UK’s critical defence and national security needs. My personal assessment is that the Royal Navy (including the RM, RFA etc) is in the worst place compared to its required taskings, the Royal Air Force is second, whilst the British Army is actually the least worst off. Of course if the Army was asked today to deploy a combat ready Armoured Division as per 1991 and 2003, it couldn’t do so. A strong mechanised brigade including one regiment of tanks is now its maximum effort. But the RN and RAF are even worse off compared to their capabilities in 1991 and 2003.
What are the Royal Navy’s required taskings and so where do their capability gaps lie?
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2022/february/11/20220211-speech-by-1sl
OK. That was just a Vision speech out to 2035. Nothing about todays tasks and commitments.
Why don’t you find out your self ?
RB says he has done the research. Why not share the research?
Thomas has just had piss in his cereal today and is swinging at everyone he comes across isn’t he? 😂🤣🤣😂🤣
A great turn of phrase! Yes, it seems so.
Post brexit the economy has been hit by anything from 6-10% based on which economic data you take, mainly because we ended up with a terrible trade deal with our largest trading partner and zero better deals with any other country (using goverment own data none of them result in anything above a 0.1% gdp benefit)
We don’t have many cards to play in any trade deal with the EU, but one we do is defence and they are very keen on a deal around that and keen not to discuss it at the same time as trade for obvious reasons. The uk however should make sure they are discussed together.
For once defence is directly linked to trade and gdp, and so the goverment past and current should be reinforcing it and not keep cutting.
Poland becoming a major land force and Germany rearming, plus trump looking like he will lose, means that our card won’t be playable for long.
Fair post 👍
Good Morning,
Let’s hope the Defence review will repair the damage done over many years and ensure investment to boost all the services which is desperately required.
Nick
Morning Nick , I and many others on here pray 🙏your right but sadly can’t see this current government doing the right thing 🙄