"New Proposal Would Decrease U.K. Army By 20,000" Topic

"THE army could be cut by as many as 20,000 troops under plans drawn up by defence chiefs, it has been reported.

The move could slash the size of the army by a quarter, close airfields and remove helicopters out of the service.

Royal Marines commandos could also face an uncertain future under the plans with the brigade disbanded and its artillery, engineers and landing craft all axed in a worst case scenario.."
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

Hmmmmm……….

Good thing there are no enemies to worry about, what with peace spontaneously breaking out around the globe.

Here's more info from a Q&A session with the BBC.

bbc.com/news/uk-18710936

I was shocked to see only 54 tanks in active service on one other website, though it lists 227 total, so presumably the others are in reserve. Not sure if that means they'll be available quickly if needed, or just used for spare parts though.

link

One battalion of CRVs, IIRC, and two of Warriors as well.

Ah, looks like perhaps I got that wrong, and there are actually going to be three armored infantry brigades (with 54 tanks each, presumably), though it does appear only one will be operational at a time, the second will be in training, and the third will be quote "assigned to other tasks", whatever that means.

I found this site to be a bit misleading (given the above), but it's where I got the 227 (that makes the UK 60th in the world in the number of tanks it can field, according to the second link below) tank number from:

link

link

They list "total troops" for the UK, and don't break out the number actually on Active Duty in the army separately, so it makes it appear the army is a lot stronger than it actually is, especially if they get down to only about 50,000 – 55,000 troops in service.

Given the way of NATO and it's lack of commitment by most members and coupled with two decades of increasingly erratic and inane US defence policy , why should Britain pump money into a land army?

Invest the money into Navy, Air force and nuclear deterrent instead.

I guess it depends upon your outlook.

Most wars are fought on land, and few at sea.

With the current state of the UK's navy, other than it's ballistic missile subs, it appears to be ill suited to be able to fight in a real naval conflict, especially since its two carriers have yet to receive a full complement of operational jets for them. Also, I have the impression that Britain would be hard pressed to protect them with the number and quality of its escort vessel, in any significant military conflict, from what I've read.

They're not alone in this. Much of NATO and the EU are in a similar position.

There seems to be little real naval threat to the UK at the moment, and other than providing protection for the Falklands, I see little real use for it given the forces currently deployed around the globe by various potential foes to the UK.

Of course, it does have a strong naval tradition, but the high costs of naval vessel procurement, operations, and maintenance tend to be a real drain on the economies of many nations.

Given that, I personally think a rebalancing to favor their air force and army would make more sense.

It's a response to the reality of modern warfare.

Our soldiers tend not to have to be deployed en masse, and haven't been since the 1940s.

In Korea we deployed 20,000 soldiers, in the Falklands War, 30,000, in the biggest deployments in Iraq no more than 10,000.

Given current resources (120,000 Army soldiers and 8,000 Marines) we seem to be well covered for this scale of deployment. We don't have the money or the population to maintain or staff a huge army like China or India or the US.

The RN needs to be drawn back to 'home service'…..the belief that they can project power is ridiculous as they do not have the force to back it up.
Patrolling of home coastal waters and the looming fishing crisis with the EU would lend it to better service rather than distant showing the flag operations in the Gulf etc.

peace in our time …..

Perhaps, CF, if no one has the money to fund their military forces adequately anymore, though of course there is the local rioting to deal with.

What could possibly go wrong with this plan. List out the worst case scenarios, remembering every time that you choose the military for diplomacy you are already closer to those worst case scenarios.

Every nation ought to keep several cards available; Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic. You ought to have all possibilities open to you.

The nature and extent of a countries military forces need to be proportionate to their expected role.

The UK is not and has never been a superpower, it doesn't have and has never had either the money or population to match any of the big hitters like Russia, China or the US.

The role of the UK has diminished in modern politics, we are a political backwater and our decreasing military reflects that. We don't have a UK equivalent to US exceptionalism, and don't regard as ourselves as a world police.

The UK don't generally use military or paramilitary forces for civilian purposes (with the obvious historical exception of Northern Ireland) and occasional peacetime emergencies like flooding, and firefighters strikes. They are certainly never deployed for civil disturbances these days.

Basically the UK defence budget seems to be increasingly tipped towards big ticket items of potentially dubious utility – accepting the nuclear deterrent which is basically an expensive insurance policy… So perhaps not surprising the head counts shrinking on top of fairly long standing recruitment and retention issues.

And the way things are going they'll have to scratch off the 51st Infantry Brigade anyway.

But maybe Dominic Cumming's restructuring of the MOD will help!

I don't suppose a newly independent Scotland will need a military so yes I suspect you're right.

But an Independent Scotland will have an army, a navy, an air force, membership of NATO, but no nukes thank you, re-entrytotheEUthePoundtheRoyalFamilycontroloffishingNorthSeaoil….

Follow the Irish model and you could have all of that with a combined establishment numbering less than 10,000 personnel.

I don't really know which way a second referendum would go, but if it did go the other way, I'd be sad but not surprised to see Scotland leave.

The UK is not and has never been a superpower

Really?
Never?

Superpower only really applies to the US and SU post WW2. We can retroactively apply it to the hegemony Britain enjoyed in the latter half of the 19th Century. But the idea of a superpower came later, by which time the UK was all washed up.

Brits just have a silly inflated idea of their own importance on the world stage. Time we woke up and smelled the [watery] coffee fumes wafting across the Atlantic.

The word is new – 1943 – but if the British Empire in the 19th century (ending c1918) didn't fit the criteria nobody does.

As for Britain now – different question, it depends on how much autonomy you want to retain. Certainly no superpower but we don't have to roll over and snivel about it.

(Not suggesting you are, Skarper)

Britain has been punching above its weight since the 1940s. At times virtually a client state of the US. At other times standing up to them and paying the price.

I agree, you can describe the British Empire as a superpower-like power in the late 1800s. Even by WW1 that was over.

It's a moot point, whether we were great in the olden days.

I doubt Russia, the US or China takes the UK seriously as either a military or a political entity, at best we are the US's Air Strip One.

The UK is a great country with many positive features, but needlessly maintaining an oversized armed forces because we had one in the past is patently ridiculous. We still have a military role to play but we have moved beyond the point when we could fight in a massed conflict like World War 2.

newarch quote
"Follow the Irish model and you could have all of that with a combined establishment numbering less than 10,000 personnel.
not a member of nato
no real airforce relies on the british for air defence when russians intrude
navy suitable for engaging fishing vessels only
army not sure will need to email wife's relatives over there ,i will get back to you