>#British Army ‘only big enough to tootle about at home’
>George Grylls
>Friday November 25 2022, 12.01am GMT, The Times
>Ben Wallace has said the British army needs to be properly funded as it is only big enough to “stay at home and do a bit of tootling around”.
>The army is set to shrink to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars after ministers approved plans last year to reduce the overall number of troops from 82,000 to 72,500.
>But speaking to The Times on a visit to Norway this week, the defence secretary refused to rule out further cuts, emphasising the need to invest in other areas of the armed forces amid a squeeze across Whitehall.
>Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has said defence spending will not rise before an update of the integrated review of foreign policy, putting in doubt the government’s previous pledge to raise expenditure to 3 per cent of GDP.
>Asked to guarantee the size of the army would not fall below 72,500, Wallace said: “I will guarantee I will design an armed forces to fit the threat and to fit the ambition of the prime minister.
>“We get in trouble when governments promise things without backing them up — they want to be everywhere . . . but they don’t fund it.” He said the UK was “deeply vulnerable” in some parts of its defences, promising more investment in anti-air capabilities, as he said the size of the army depended on the government’s foreign policy ambitions.
>“If we just want to stay at home and do a bit of tootling around, we’ve got an armed forces big enough,” he said. “We also have an international alliance of 30 people,” he added, referring to Nato.
>Wallace was in Oslo to attend a meeting of European defence ministers aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth, the navy’s largest warship. While there, he announced the purchase of Norwegian anti-ship missiles to strengthen the Royal Navy as he emphasised British support for Scandinavian allies after President Putin launched two nuclear-powered icebreakers.
[removed]
It’s hardly surprising that as an island nation with a limited budget our focus is on the much more useful Royal Navy and RAF.
>tootle about at home
They should use that in the adverts might get a few more recruits!
For context: at height of Afghan Iraq campaigns, the Army had 102k trained personnel.
It now has 76k. Iraq was mostly armoured Brigade deployment, Afghan x2 infantry Brigades.
High tour frequency combat fatigue led to high attrition rate of experienced personnel.
At the very least, the Army will have to accept playing a minor role in a NATO or similar coalition, if it’s to uphold current global commitments. Equally, any future role assisting the US in the Indo-Pacific would almost undoubtedly prove too much a burden.
Size isn’t everything. Ukraine had 12 HIMARS that were pretty decisive in turning the tide against Russia (for reference USA has 400), plus other western ‘smart’ weapons and training. Should teach us that the UK army is more than big enough to defend ourselves, and we aren’t going to be invading other countries solo.
Not sure we need to spend money expanding the army for the sake of it. “But Russia” would have made sense prior to Ukraine, but apart from the nukes they don’t seem much of a threat anymore. UK, France and Germany could probably combine to beat them even without US help.
I wonder as a declining ~~empire~~ state we should take a page out the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire’s ~~Strategikon~~ book. A smaller force can be effective as economic and diplomatic weight diminishes – Eastern Rome didn’t survive for another thousand years after the West on nothing, despite a constant slow burn decline. They were, as always, focused on adaptability and to some extent diversification of forces to meet demographic and technological changes.
We’ve got trident, we don’t need the army, should be scrapped
Fuck it can’t join because of asthma but if they set up a dad’s army type eh thing sign me up. I can tootle and Im no a bad shot, and for the next 2 years I can provide my own rifle and rounds.
Maybe that’s good? We’ve been fucking around in other countries for about the last 800 years. Maybe an interlude of not doing that would be a positive.
Good. We have nukes, no one’s going to invade, and there’s no reason to be invading anywhere else.
“…Armed forces to fit the threat…” So, protesters demanding an election, then? Strikers?
Good, maybe we can spend a bit of that 60 billion a year on the kids starving and people in poverty and slow down on subsidising ~~war criminal scum~~ BAE systems’ profit margins with needless imperialistic wars
The army isn’t used to project power. That’s the navy and the airforce. Britain’s army has always been smaller than our European neighbours because island states don’t need to fear land invasion.
Probably for the best considering how much damage we’ve done abroad. Maybe they could farm those crops that are going to waste due to the labour shortage?
British army needs 100k active 50k reserve.
The US is an ally (for now) and spends more than every country…maybe not China. Why would we need to waste money there when we can’t take care of the needs of our people?
Have we ever had much of a land army? We’ve always been a more diplomatic power, but I guess these boots are nice for posturing?
19 comments
>#British Army ‘only big enough to tootle about at home’
>George Grylls
>Friday November 25 2022, 12.01am GMT, The Times
>Ben Wallace has said the British army needs to be properly funded as it is only big enough to “stay at home and do a bit of tootling around”.
>The army is set to shrink to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars after ministers approved plans last year to reduce the overall number of troops from 82,000 to 72,500.
>But speaking to The Times on a visit to Norway this week, the defence secretary refused to rule out further cuts, emphasising the need to invest in other areas of the armed forces amid a squeeze across Whitehall.
>Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has said defence spending will not rise before an update of the integrated review of foreign policy, putting in doubt the government’s previous pledge to raise expenditure to 3 per cent of GDP.
>Asked to guarantee the size of the army would not fall below 72,500, Wallace said: “I will guarantee I will design an armed forces to fit the threat and to fit the ambition of the prime minister.
>“We get in trouble when governments promise things without backing them up — they want to be everywhere . . . but they don’t fund it.” He said the UK was “deeply vulnerable” in some parts of its defences, promising more investment in anti-air capabilities, as he said the size of the army depended on the government’s foreign policy ambitions.
>“If we just want to stay at home and do a bit of tootling around, we’ve got an armed forces big enough,” he said. “We also have an international alliance of 30 people,” he added, referring to Nato.
>Wallace was in Oslo to attend a meeting of European defence ministers aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth, the navy’s largest warship. While there, he announced the purchase of Norwegian anti-ship missiles to strengthen the Royal Navy as he emphasised British support for Scandinavian allies after President Putin launched two nuclear-powered icebreakers.
[removed]
It’s hardly surprising that as an island nation with a limited budget our focus is on the much more useful Royal Navy and RAF.
>tootle about at home
They should use that in the adverts might get a few more recruits!
For context: at height of Afghan Iraq campaigns, the Army had 102k trained personnel.
It now has 76k. Iraq was mostly armoured Brigade deployment, Afghan x2 infantry Brigades.
High tour frequency combat fatigue led to high attrition rate of experienced personnel.
At the very least, the Army will have to accept playing a minor role in a NATO or similar coalition, if it’s to uphold current global commitments. Equally, any future role assisting the US in the Indo-Pacific would almost undoubtedly prove too much a burden.
Size isn’t everything. Ukraine had 12 HIMARS that were pretty decisive in turning the tide against Russia (for reference USA has 400), plus other western ‘smart’ weapons and training. Should teach us that the UK army is more than big enough to defend ourselves, and we aren’t going to be invading other countries solo.
Not sure we need to spend money expanding the army for the sake of it. “But Russia” would have made sense prior to Ukraine, but apart from the nukes they don’t seem much of a threat anymore. UK, France and Germany could probably combine to beat them even without US help.
I wonder as a declining ~~empire~~ state we should take a page out the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire’s ~~Strategikon~~ book. A smaller force can be effective as economic and diplomatic weight diminishes – Eastern Rome didn’t survive for another thousand years after the West on nothing, despite a constant slow burn decline. They were, as always, focused on adaptability and to some extent diversification of forces to meet demographic and technological changes.
We’ve got trident, we don’t need the army, should be scrapped
Fuck it can’t join because of asthma but if they set up a dad’s army type eh thing sign me up. I can tootle and Im no a bad shot, and for the next 2 years I can provide my own rifle and rounds.
Maybe that’s good? We’ve been fucking around in other countries for about the last 800 years. Maybe an interlude of not doing that would be a positive.
Good. We have nukes, no one’s going to invade, and there’s no reason to be invading anywhere else.
“…Armed forces to fit the threat…” So, protesters demanding an election, then? Strikers?
Good, maybe we can spend a bit of that 60 billion a year on the kids starving and people in poverty and slow down on subsidising ~~war criminal scum~~ BAE systems’ profit margins with needless imperialistic wars
The army isn’t used to project power. That’s the navy and the airforce. Britain’s army has always been smaller than our European neighbours because island states don’t need to fear land invasion.
Probably for the best considering how much damage we’ve done abroad. Maybe they could farm those crops that are going to waste due to the labour shortage?
British army needs 100k active 50k reserve.
The US is an ally (for now) and spends more than every country…maybe not China. Why would we need to waste money there when we can’t take care of the needs of our people?
Have we ever had much of a land army? We’ve always been a more diplomatic power, but I guess these boots are nice for posturing?