The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the British Army is still pursuing its goal to double its lethality by 2027 and triple it by 2030, as outlined by the Chief of the General Staff earlier this year, according to a recent parliamentary response.
In response to Conservative MP Mark Francois’s inquiry about whether these targets remain on track, Defence Minister Luke Pollard stated that “the Chief of the General Staff is working hard to fulfil the ambition outlined at the RUSI Land Warfare conference.”
Pollard added, “The British Army continues to work to these goals, in tandem with the ongoing Strategic Defence Review.”
Key questions remain around the feasibility and specific steps required to achieve these milestones. The ongoing Strategic Defence Review may provide further clarity on how these objectives will be met and the resources allocated to this effort.
The urgency of these goals stems from statements made by General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, who in July described the pressing need for the British Army to be ready for a potential conflict by 2027.
Walker characterised the current global environment as an “axis of upheaval” marked by intensifying threats from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Citing growing support between these nations, Walker emphasised the importance of rapid modernisation to keep pace with adversaries who are increasingly interconnected and mutually supportive in their military ambitions.
Walker’s comments highlighted the challenge posed by China’s ambitions regarding Taiwan, Iran’s nuclear programme, and Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine, all of which contribute to a volatile security landscape. He noted U.S. assessments indicating China’s potential readiness for action over Taiwan by 2027, adding a sense of urgency to the British Army’s plans for enhanced lethality.
To meet these heightened demands without significant additional funding, Walker suggested that the British Army must adopt innovations in technology, including drones and artificial intelligence, drawing lessons from the conflict in Ukraine.
Is the domain of the British Military too wide? Should it be doing Crime, Cyber, Intel…
Why aren’t those functions broken up into smaller specialised units?
Not one big company! That’s just plain stupid!
👏
No.
Crime. As in, it has a Corps of RMP?
Cyber is tri service as well as the agencies.
Intell is vital.
? They are.
Crime – clearly all 3 services need to deal with any crime committed by service personnel and so have service police and disciplinary machinery. The Navy has a task involving only a small number of ships (one or two?) to reduce international piracy, such as international drug smuggling. No recent examples of the army or RAF dealing with criminal endeavours. Not sure this is an issue. Cyber – one of the 5 domains of warfare – we need a strong cyber capability in Defence – offensive and defensive. I don’t know how many service personnel are engaged in this endeavour… Read more »
Explained far better than me.
Cyber yes probably a few thousand.
13 Royal Signals. JCU Cheltenham, JCU Corsham, JC Reserve force, elements of 90 SU, plus several smaller units in the RN, RAF and Army, regular and reservist.
Of course these augment those assets contributed by the agencies.
The area is currently expanding with the formation of the JCF and the concept of “PAGC” Units.
Thanks mate!
Don’t agree!
Crime; Should be one Civil force to cover all three services!
Drugs should be separate force; DEA!
Intel; I don’t mean SigInt!
MIx already have access to Mil Intel, but are out Military force!
Cyber: BULLSHIT! Should be Private Company’s, or better still, the function broken down to a number of smaller company’s!
Your thinking is radical. On crime, I presume you would take away crime investigation from the service police, and leave them to their other duties. Not sure what the advantages of that are. I see an advantage in service police investigating criminal activity by service personnel or that by intruders who have committed crimes in military locations – service police understand the military world, have the respect of the chain of command and have access to classified sites etc. I mentioned the RNs operations against drug smugglers on the high seas. If we created a British version of the US… Read more »
Crime: Objectivity, Civil Police can and do, and would deploy anywhere! HK, Kenya,..
Drugs: UK DEA with separate ships.
Intel: I would not class Recce, Sigint as Intel, Mil only.
But, Remember SOE type operations. GB has a Five I’s (14) commitments, they can’t do, as in Syria
We would still need to keep service police as they have duties other than criminal investigation and prosecution. Yet MoD would have to fund the cost of the CIVPOL doing the latter in a commercial contract. Overall, your idea would be very costly.
Hi RDM. A few complications with that. Crime: MDP cover the civil side in the UK, for all three service. However, the uniformed RMP, RAF Police and RN Police all deploy as needed into war zones, which a civil force cannot. Drugs: The RN and thus wider military involvement in Drugs is minimal already. If a RN OPV detains drug runners as a part of its duties while deployed that is surely a positive. The SAS in the late 80s were directly assigned to Colombia but I don’t think that sort of commitment happens now in that sphere. Intel: Glad… Read more »
I’m betting he means companies as in civilian contractor plcs not sub unit strength formations.
Maybe.
Or perhaps as in PMCs? So hired Mercs.
Given the wide involvement of the military in all areas Intel wise I think it a total non starter.
Once gone and the skills fade, then what. For me it is one of the most important areas there is.
I know SIS officers, civilians, do go into war zones, but they usually have military minders.
You also have clearance issues in some areas, STRAP, Enhanced DV needed, and so on, that might need military personnel rather than relying on contractors.
Surely mass counts in an Army!!!
I’m a proud ex serviceman and it upsets me greatly to see our once capable Armed Forces decimated by successive governments. We are merely a Defence Force albeit a small capable force with a punch – we remain a warrior nation, but if we continue the decline then I’m not sure what will be left.
I’m really not sure what our American friends and fellow warriors think anymore.
Mass counts for very little in mechanised warfare, logistic, training, technology are far more important.
Juts ask the Iraqi army
The Iraqi army was facing quite a large allied army in both Gulf Wars! We deployed a division in each case.
Mass counts for a lot. A small, well equipped, trained and led army would expect to be beaten by a much larger well equipped, trained and led army. It’s just that mass is only one part of the equation – you have to get the rest right as well.
Jim, that’s just not true. The key to land warfare is Tempo. Tempo is created by logistics, communications, training, and Mass. Tempo is the speed that you can cycle through operations relative to the enemy. The reason mass is so important is that eventually, a small, well trained and equipped force will eventually have to slow down or stop because it will simply run out of people, equipment or ammunition – or just pure endurance of human beings and or equipment. So – not enough armour – you become victim to track mileage. Not enough people, your people have to… Read more »
I’m sure you probably not aware but you do realise that while we are raising our defence budget in real terms the US is cutting theirs right?
It’s self hating nhailist comments like this that make alot of people want to stop visiting this website.
It’s also food for Russian Trolls and Chinese propaganda.
If your going to make comments about how shit the UK is then can you atleast do your homework.
I’m encouraged by this news and in the face of mounting threats it’s heartening that the Government is making this commitment.
Hmmmm. According to Wallace in the DT today, that nice little 2.9 billion boost to MoD the other week INCLUDED Ukraine money.
So not quite as it seems?
It’s something I thought was likely. Never trust a Governmental politician, such as Reeves.
I was interested to read him saying never believe the statement in the Commons, look for details in the “Red Book” where all the gory details reside.
Reeves doesn’t give a toss apparently. 🙁
What on earth made you think otherwise?
Blind hope?! I’d trust Labour on defence, as I’ve said many times, as much as I’d trust Pol Pot.
But the last Tory government was so bad as well. Nowhere to go.
Blind Hope…Yep I know exactly what you mean considering the last 15 years or so.
Longer. I was in despair after the Front Line First cuts of 1995! Then SDSR 1997. SDSR New Chapter 2004 was worse. And the worst of all, SDSR 2010, when most of us on defence forums ( there was one at that time ) were bemoaning 13 years of Labour dismantling the military, and the “Hope” that the Tories, who made all the right noises then, just like Labour did this time, would turn things round. It looks like Reeves has just done the dirty on defence with her vaunted 2.9 billion boost by shoving UKR money in it, so… Read more »
That’s ridiculous, very disappointing indeed.
Yes of course it included Ukraine money, they increased the overall budget and Ukraine money was part of the budget so obviously it includes Ukraine money. Defence spending is getting real terms increases though and the last few years it’s been getting real terms cuts. Painting that as we are all doomed or that we are some how a lesser power and an embarrassment to the USA as Paul T was doing is at worst inaccurate. Everyone in the world from the USA to North Korea, China and Russia are all economically f**ked just as we are. Most are cutting… Read more »
I think they cut 700 million this year, Jim.
Short term maybe.
The 2.9 should be to enhance our own forces. If a significant chunk is for UKR then to me it’s spin, again. As for Paul’s comments, the army I hope is organising itself on 2 Divisions.
An Internal structure review is underway, Wavell.
Mass, along with tech, logistic tail, and professionalism all count. Either just one or the other is disaster.
A balance is needed.
When Reeves said there’s going to be x amount of money which will keep Defence payments in line with the economy, it was pretty obvious the best we could expect was no change in terms of GDP over all. I didn’t know what the trick was going to be, but if she had planned to increase Defence spending as a percentage of GDP, that would have been front and centre.
Surely you’re not trying to compare our defense budget to that of America as that would be really amusing.
As for the comment about people no longer wanting to visit this site I’m sure there are more pertinent posts than someone merely bemoaning the state of our armed forces.
The trite comments about ‘doubling and trebling our lethality’ whilst having no credible plan to increase man power deserves to be called out for the bullshit it undoubtedly is.
I agree with you. This lethality aspiration needs some detail to be provided by CGS. The replacement of upgraded Warriors (enabling a 40mm stabilised cannon per section) by Boxer dramatically reduces the infantry’s lethality….unless the army staff really can a lethality of Boxer beyond a MG… but we have heard rumours only so far.
Agree it needs more hard detail but the process has been ongoing for some time we already know we are getting a big increase in long range artillery.
Given the poor performance of almost all direct fire weapons in Ukraine including 120mm I’m not sure the 40mm debate will change much.
Indirect fires probably rules supreme now.
Jim, if you were in an infantry section, would you rather your wagon had a stabilised 40mm to totally take out enemy IFVs and APCs and had a range of up to 8,500m…. and give you heavy supporting direct fire when dismounted…. or that it had a poxy little MG?
Say no more 👍
Perhaps You should go back and re read my comments because I have no idea how you picked up that I’m comparing the US and the UK defence budgets. Are you aware what the phrase real terms increase means? Have you come across relative and absolute measurements before? As for the manpower vs lethality debate. Is an armoured vehicles more or less lethal than an infantry soldier ? Is a multiple launched rockets systems more or less lethal than a shoulder mounted missile? Are you aware of the process started in the army a number of years ago called mechanisation?… Read more »
Mass certainly counts in the army, as does high tech weapons and excellent sensors and communications etc.
At its peak we had 21,000 soldiers deployed in Northern Ireland, albeit a good number were UDR. We deployed a division to each of the two Gulf Wars, albeit ‘small-ish’ divisions.
Around Jan 2023 a senior US general privately told Defence Secretary Ben Wallace that the British Army is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force, defence sources revealed.
America is not somewhere I like depending on.
Double, umm did i miss some thing? Head of the Army say triple are the MOD already down playing that?
No, CGS originally said to double by 2027 and triple by 2030.
i am corrected. he best pull his finger out to get that then, time is ticking
As it stands its all words.
I can only suggest he means in terms of response time by better ISTAR queuing precision weapons onto target.
Which although good, is not want most posters think of in those terms and without firepower or people, difficult.
So really bending the truth with no big equipment buys as normal smoke and mirrors. Warm words that will be spun into not much.
They’ve bought or upgraded a number of MLRS. You can check the numbers on a wide number of sources , including Army Technology.
I know but upgrade to A2 takes time and they buying more, some tube arty would be a good move, some warm words on RGH 155mm but no buy yet even though Ukraine have it
He spelled out what it meant to him: that we can defeat twice the number of peer opponents by 2027 and three times as many by 2030. Of course shortening the OODA loop will be one method. I’d guess better linkage with other domains will be another, and AI-supported decision making in the command structure a third. Focus on increased range and deep strike will give us something. Even though I’d hope we get better ISTAR and sensor fusion leading to increasing battlespace awareness, unless we can get past GPS denial somehow, I’m not sure more precision will be a… Read more »
Yep think were on 5-12 🙄
Warm words but as always no big equipment buys nothing. Lets see how he spins this no action then? Trust in CDS and his crowd is not good.
I would like to see the plan 👀
So would I, as I know the ORBAT and can see it for what it is.
sadly its not the military that needs reducing, but the politicians that need to be replaced.
just a thought.
Replaced with who?
anyone other than what we have, perhaps.
any suggestions?
I didn’t make the comment. You did. Take responsibility.
Proposer autocratic leaders who will spend massive amounts of public money on the army that we might have grand military parades each year 😀
I don’t understand. Double it from what to what? What are we doubling it and trebling it from in the first place? What exactly are we doubling and trebling that’s included in the term lethality?When was the start date that they decided to double it and what did we have then? My brain hurts.
I suggest.
ISTAR. ISTAR. More ISTAR.
Linked to the Deep Fires expansion, C UAS initiatives, Boxer Overwatch, and the AD expansion, both SHORAD MRAD, that they are still to implement.
On that, I think they were holding out for more personnel in the SDSR, but as that’s now not happening it takes some planning, moving establishments about, creating new Batteries in the RA while reducing other areas.
It also needs a greater stockpile of ordnance.
I guess you’re right but I didn’t read it that way and judging by the other posts, neither did anyone else.
General Walker’s comments re China. He noted US assessments indicating Chinas potential readiness for action over Taiwan by 2027 adding a sense of urgency to the British Army’s plans for enhanced lethality.
Almost sounds like he is saying we would go to war with China if they invade Taiwan. Otherwise why would that scenario add any urgency when they are half the planet away?
How would the British Army go to war with China?
Forget sizes, how would they be transported there and where would they land?!
The army needs to concentrate on Russia and organise itself to put SIX proper all arms brigades in the field, 2 Divisions, not the mash up that exists now of Brigades being in two places at once and without CS CSS.
The RN can do the China thing, though I’d hope we stay away and support the US by relieving US units from other areas and hold strategic points.
On the army, just to add to your morning pleasure, rumours on Twitter of a reduction to 63K floating around.
Maybe Starmer, Reeves and Healey will wake up and pay attention when Trump asks allies to spend more in their own interest and own defence?
I’m sure he won’t hold back when the cuts come in.
I agree, ISTAR and direct long range precious fire is the new king of warfare.
It’s quite easy and cheap to triple that in comparisons with tripling armoured units or infantry units.
Add GBAD and the comments on doubling MRAD and Tripling SHORAD
Add Drones in all forms.
Intelligence and technology, augmented by Drones and AI, is where we are heading.
Still need enough “deployable” mass though which is why im holding out in Wavell giving 2 Proper Divisions from the headcount we have, not the 80k or 90k the army wouid like.
Alongside this, the RN, RAF and intell community as ever remain the primary areas for me.
Indeed , it will be interesting to see what metrics they use to measure the ‘before’ and ‘after’ appraisals…
The artillery metric might be 14 Archers and a dozen or so elderly AS-90s as a start point for 155mm tube arty.
The As90 pot is just about empty only in Estonia now and Archer after what I have been told today it beggars belief
If we look at what is responsible for most equipment losses in Ukraine, then narrow our search down to just things that fall under the Army’s remit, we quickly find ourselves presented with just 3 systems that seem to have an outsized impact on lethality. Drones, Self Propelled Guns, and Multiple Lauch Rocket Systems. Therefore, if we give every section a First Person View drone, and double our SPG and MRLS numbers (whilst also making sure we have sufficient ISTAR capability to take advantage of these new and shiny toys) then we can pretty credibly say we have doubled if… Read more »
If we want theses capabilities then more Boots are needed for the so called punch 👍
I’d take that all day long as would most I would guess. Along with munitions. Doubtful that will happen in the foreseeable future though.
BOOM.
Some Brigades need proper CS CSS too.
We need to forget the desire for an 80k army or a 90k and organise what we have, that bring proper all arms Brigades with firepower.
The lib Dems election pledge, army to 100k is one such meaningless gimik.
Indeed,job one role changes for some of the brigades if we look at 1st division 11 brigade, what is the point of a brigade that is simply nothing more than 4 light role battalions..essentially get rid of 11 brigade entirely and use the manpower and resources to ensure other brigades are balanced and fully deployable. Essentially anything 11 brigade could do 4th light brigade could do with large number of light role battalions..that’s all the light role ( excluding airmobile) that’s needed, infact if you needed the manpower you for other support functions you could drop a light role battalion… Read more »
I’m in total agreement. I’d caution however that finding a regular RA Regiment, RE Regiment, RLC Regiment for 4 Bde plus the expansions needed in 16 and 12 RA to double and triple GBAD while expanding deep fires to it’s, reported, 8 Batteries plus Reseve Batteries will take more than losing the Battalions in 11 Bde, as they are already well below the establishment of a Light Infantry Battalion. More internal shuffling is needed. On DRSB, while I like the concept, I agree at heart it is a cynical attempt by the army to make it look like it has… Read more »
Not quite. It was a chart showing how we could get 2 Divisions (1 Armoured, 1 Mechanised) of 3 Brigades + 1 Reserve Brigade, plus 1 DSR, 11 SFA, Rangers and UKCF without any uptick in Teeth Arms units. It still required standing up 7 Regular CS and CSS Regiments (and a few Reservist ones too).
But in peacetime you end up with 6 Combat Brigades each consisting of 4 Maneuver elements, growing to 8 Combat Brigades of 5 Maneuver elements on mobilization.
Morning mate.
I guess that’s too much for this SDSR with no uplift in people.
Nice to see the army finally focus on effect rather than input.
“lethality” Targets shmargets… what a load of old pony! The only way to ‘double’ or whatever how lethal an army is, is to have more of it. With less than 73,000 (with god alone knows how many are queuing up to leave) in the Army, and 9,000 or less Infantry, what world are these people living in!
Those numbers are for sure an issue, tech can only get you so far raw numbers are also essential. It was only a few years ago that they were aiming for the ability to deploy 50k troops, guessing that is now sub 30k or 20.
Absolutely agree 🍺
We await what this means in reality.
More precision fires.
More GMLRS.
More AD
More ISTAR linking it together.
Knowledge is power.
Only issue is you still need bodies and greater mass then we now posess, and firepower.
If the army ever actually announce how they intend to do this it’ll he good.
stormtrooper clones I believe…
Simpler than that fella, give each troop TWO weapons, tadda! Double the leathality! 🙂
Tony Blair said Education Education ,Starmer says Economy Economy ,the General needs to say Recruit Recruit 😟
What does “double lethality” mean? Double the number of troops or equipment, bullets?
Does anybody know how the lethality of the British Army is calculated? It would be nice to know what it is currently, so that I can tell if the MOD has met its goals for 2027 and 2030. Maybe the British Army will be able to fill Wembley Stadium by 2027, and one and a half by 2030. Though that type of measure probably exposes the MOD to too much scrutiny. Not good when you are looking to get your annual bonus.
👍
One of the best questions I have seen on these pages! I was in the army for 34 years and I never saw a definition or a measure of lethality. It certainly is not simply the number of soldiers in the Field Army as many have little to no lethality. My entire Corps (REME) comprising 10% of the army, did a great job, but you could not reasonably apply a lethality metric to our soldiers. I think you could create a lethality metric, based on scientific principles. Much easier to do this for RN and RAF assets but could be… Read more »
Perhaps some of you arm chair Generals could try some simple arithmetic exercises. Look at the likely casualty rates of our armour in the first few days and weeks of conflict in Europe. Factor in damage and time to repair. Then factor in simple mechanical breakdowns. With no reserves sitting invarying states of readiness in warehouses in UK I would suggest mass does matter because by the end of week 2 it is very unlikely we will have much of a fighting force left.
Precisely.
Where have you seen the “generals” on here say anything else other than we are far too small?
Just to counter your point a tad though if you are comparing Ukraine to how a NATO army would fight it is chalk and cheese! Ukraine has NO AirPower to speak off unlike NATO with strategic bombers down to attack helicopters on the front line.
Completely agree with you 😟 🇬🇧
Well since you’re so big on arithmetic exercises, maybe scale that to the loss rates for 2 brigades rather than an entire front.
I’ve figured it out: if you quarter the manpower, and halve the equipment, the remaining force is twice as ‘lethal’
PMSL
That does not work unless you keep the equipment and divide it up ( give each infantryman 2 rifles) it does make them harder to find and hit maybe (one person is harder to find than 2).
yes of course: so two people with two rifles each is in fact twice as lethal as four people with one gun each.
Sadly true. Reminds me of the ‘smaller, but better army’ mantra espoused in the past by cutting politicians.
Do they have an actual plan? How on earth are they going to double the “lethality” (whatever that means) in 3 years and triple it 3 years after that? Especially without extra funding.
I think it is a CGS aspiration, rather than there being any plan behind it (at the moment).
On this £2.9 bn extra for the forces, it was widely reported that this was to pay for two things, the 6% pay settlement and increasing our depleted weapons stockpile. That was how it was reported on BBC News, British Foreign Policy Group, Forces News and others, looked like they picked up on the same press release from…the MOD? However, the official text for the budget announcements described a host of things the money was for – ISTAR drones, special Forces, etc, etc, as well as including money for Ukraine. I think that the text covering the budget is a… Read more »
Hi mate.
Interesting analysis there, thank you. I hope you’re correct.
I never did see those statements that the £2.9bn was to reimburse MoD for the pay award and to pay for stockpile enhancements. Perhaps they were assumptions made by Defence journalists from some sort of MoD briefing. The official budget statement would have been more authoritative. As you say £1.9bn (of the £2.9bn) for stockpile replenishment does not go far. But to get anything out of Reeves this side of SDR was a bonus, and somewhat unexpected. But if the money is largely earmarked for the Ukraine military rather than the British military, that is of no direct benefit to… Read more »
Don’t get me wrong help Ukraine by all means, however the UK have a habitat of putting other’s first before our own .
You need a certain amount of mass to fight a war, as well as the latest technology weapons and munitions. The mini size the army has been reduced to would not last for very long on the modern battlefield, whether or not armed with more GMLRS, fpv drones or whatever. Breaking Defense reminds us that the UK is committed to fielding a strategic reserve corps of 2 divisions + corps troops to NATO. That is pretty small beer. But we seem to have talked ourselves into pretending that one warfighting division is all we need – then providing the equipment… Read more »
Good post mate 🍺
Very informative, confirms what I feared.Thanks 👍
If the UK declares a Corps to NATO for strategic reserve use, that is far from small beer. How on earth is a Corps a small offering? Although it is not a Corps in the old 1 (BR) Corps sense, a Corps comprising HQ ARRC (British led and British framework), an ‘armoured’ division, an ‘infantry’ division and Corps Troops is a substantial contribution. That ‘infantry’ division (1 Div) would of course require numerous AR soldiers to to be called up complete its Orbat. Very true that 3 Div is shaky: much elderly, largely unmodernised equipment, especially AFVs; some sizeable capability… Read more »
A 2-division Corps is pretty small but, in a NATO context, we could amend ‘small beer’ to ‘comparatively small beer’. That is a fair description when we look at our small force next to the other main Western European NATO members. Army strength: France: 118,600 Germany: 105,000 * Italy: 97,755 Spain: 85,978 Uk: 72,000 Manoeuvre brigades: Italy: 10 Germany: 8.5 ** Spain: 8 *** France: 6.5 UK: 4 (+1 non-deployable) Most others have significant additional forces. France for instance has 2 Legionnare regts, 11 large battalions overseas. 6 regional infantry bns etc.,etc. We have a cunning ruse when doubt is… Read more »
While I agree with the general sentiment, some of those numbers are REALLY optimistic: Italy might have 10 Brigades on paper, but: Pozzuolo di Friuli is basically a Marine Battle Group. Granatieri di Sardegna is a non-deployable garrison unit for the Capitol Sassari lacks any organic Artillery. Germany has 8 Brigades but (depending on what you’re counting) The Franco German Brigade is obviously a mixed brigade. Panzer “Lehr” Brigade 9, Panzergrenadier Brigade 41, Luftlandebrigade 1, and Gebirgsjaeger Brigade 23 all lack any organic artillery (and the Divisional Artillery is limited to one Regiment for the 1st and 10th Panzer Divisions,… Read more »
And all the other non all arms Brigades and Groups we have too in the CS CSS areas.
But then so do Italy, Germany, France etc. And once you stop talking about maneuver formations and SF/SOF they’re composition and purpose becomes so diverse that it’s impossible to make a comparison, apples to apples.
Agreed.
Very good Dern. I don’t however agree with some of your points. The list I put up above sets out all-arms combat manoeuvre brigades. It does not include Special Forces units, small infantry-only, brigades-in-name only outfits like the SFAB in 11 Bde or the Rangers or the pile of unsupported units in 4 Bde. In detail, I didn’t include the Sardinian Grenadiers “brigade” in Rome, as it is a small public duties outfit, not a deployable brigade. I idid nclude the San Marco Marine infantry brigade, as that is a deployable warfighting brigade force. A battle group is generally one… Read more »
Well that’s not true, because if you look at the Italian Army in order to reach 10 Brigades you have to include small infantry only brigades, which is PRECISELY why I took you to task about the unfair comparison. If you use the standards YOU applied to the British Army for the Italian Army they have about 7 brigades, The Lagunari have supporting units, but they have 1(!) Infantry Battalion as their combat strength, they are not a manuever formation, they are a heavily supported Battlegroup. (If you want to count it fine, but then you should be counting 1… Read more »
Thanks for the detailed answer. Options for Change cut the reg army from 160,000 to 120,000 following a considered analysis as to what the post-Cold War army required. We also ordered a mere 386 tanks for ops in the brave new world. ‘Options’ warned of the possible need to face a resurgent Russia but did not ‘predict’ the Gulf Wars which required a sizeable army commitment or anything remotely like Op HERRICK in Afghanistan. Multiple cuts since to 102k, then 95k, then 82k and now down to 73k have all been to save money and not because the Threat possibilities… Read more »
Re: “artificial intelligence” Well, everyone SHOULD of course get what AI is REALLY all about but most people CHOOSE not to want to understand it … Like with every criminal inhumane self-concerned agenda of theirs the psychopaths-in-control sell and propagandize AI to the timelessly foolish (=”awake”) public with total lies such as AI being the benign means to connect, unit, transform, benefit, and save humanity. The official narrative is… “trust official science” and “trust the authorities” but as with these and all other “official narratives” they want you to trust and believe … “We’ll know our Disinformation Program is complete… Read more »
i love you Pa,my best Pal
sometimes your POP😀
see you when i see you
lots of love to our family
this is Marshall♾️always trying to check your six
A humble servant to the King
All HAIL THE KING
LONG LIVE THE KING