The British Army has shrunk to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars

[NorthernHawkeye]

• The British Army is now smaller than those of Romania and Bangladesh.
• Its size raises questions about the UK's ability to support NATO, confront Russia, or fight a war.
• "Right now, the British Army cannot generate a single division, let alone two," an expert told BI.

The British Army has shrunk to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars

The British Army's size may cripple its ability to support NATO or fight a major war, some experts fear. It's the smallest it's been since the 1800s.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Was listening to a program a few days back where they were discussing the possibility of UK and French peacekeepers being sent to Ukraine as part of a peace deal. It was mentioned that the UK already has a small force to begin with.

 

[onlyTheObvious]

5-6 decades of living off the American debt

 

[eb05]

conventional warfare has changed. look at Russia, lots of bodies and not much to show for it. the British navy and RAF are both very strong

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

conventional warfare has changed. look at Russia, lots of bodies and not much to show for it. the British navy and RAF are both very strong

From the article:

However, the shocking casualties and trench warfare in the Ukraine conflict suggest that future wars will be attritional, with victory going to the nations that have the most stamina, industrial might and resources to sustain losses.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Like most other developed countries, income and productivity growth has been very slow in the UK since the financial crisis of 2008–09. But on a per person basis, economic growth has been slower than in the US, the EU27 and Germany in that time. The slowdown has been particularly stark given that the UK economy, and its productivity, were growing quite quickly prior to 2008. While employment growth has been strong, average earnings growth has been dreadful - for which read almost non-existent. Gross Domestic Product per head is today nearly £11,000 lower than it would have been had pre crisis trends continued.

Much of that slowdown is a result of international factors well outside the control of any government: the fallout from the financial crisis, Covid, the energy price spike. But low investment, policy mistakes, political instability, and Brexit, have combined to hold back growth by more than in many comparable nations.

In a contribution to Anthony Seldon and Tom Egerton’s forthcoming book The Conservative Effect, 2010-2024, we also take stock of tax and spending decisions:

• The government response to the deficit created by the financial crisis was a remarkable period of spending cuts: about a 4% real terms cut in public service spending between 2010 and 2019, even as the economy and population grew – something wholly unprecedented in modern times. Other countries also responded to fiscal problems created by the crisis, but most made more use of tax increases relative to spending cuts.

A decade and a half of historically poor growth has taken its toll

 

[Aardvark86]

5-6 decades of living off the American debt

Though in fairness, that did follow a half decade or so where, even today, we should all be pretty damned thankful they were where they were and did what they did.

 

[eb05]

From the article:

However, the shocking casualties and trench warfare in the Ukraine conflict suggest that future wars will be attritional, with victory going to the nations that have the most stamina, industrial might and resources to sustain losses.

Yes and that logic does not compute. Ukraine’s military power is not built for modern warfare and neither is Russia so saying it’s an example of future warfare is just wrong. That war, like all past wars, will absolutely be won based on stamina, industrial might and resources. unless other countries with a more modern fighting force gets involved. A NATO coalition (even without the US) would own the skies of Ukraine in under a week.

 

[onlyTheObvious]

Though in fairness, that did follow a half decade or so where, even today, we should all be pretty damned thankful they were where they were and did what they did.

No doubt the English Channel was the only reason they survived WWII and gave the allies a launching pad to take back Europe.

I think drones is the future. I wouldn’t invest a lot of money in manned aircraft at this point.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

conventional warfare has changed. look at Russia, lots of bodies and not much to show for it. the British navy and RAF are both very strong

Not really, one thing I do agree with Trump on, although not his methods is that Europe needs to strengthen their military forces especially with an aggressive Russia on their door step. The UK is particularly bad which is why with the US leaving the free world the leadership of it has fallen to Germany and France and not the UK.

This is a pretty unbiased historian in the UK. He has a good run-down on the weakness of the UK's conventional forces both the army and navy.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Not really, one thing I do agree with Trump on, although not his methods is that Europe needs to strengthen their military forces especially with an aggressive Russia on their door step. The UK is particularly bad which is why with the US leaving the free world the leadership of it has fallen to Germany and France and not the UK.

This is a pretty unbiased historian in the UK. He has a good run-down on the weakness of the UK's conventional forces both the army and navy.

View embedded media

View embedded media

Mark Felton puts together some great pieces.

 

[Aardvark86]

No doubt the English Channel was the only reason they survived WWII and gave the allies a launching pad to take back Europe.

I think drones is the future. I wouldn’t invest a lot of money in manned aircraft at this point.

I think you are correct, though they may be more of a 'near future'. It seems to me that recent experiences in UKR and ISR show that militaries weren't quite sure how to deal with them (and particularly not in an economical way). But as always happen, tactics and countermeasures will adapt. And either way, air power never held an inch of ground, which at the end of the day is what the resolution in UKR is (some day) going to be about.

 

[seminole97]

conventional warfare has changed. look at Russia, lots of bodies and not much to show for it. the British navy and RAF are both very strong

Compared to what?

The British Navy couldn't, with its entire fleet, rebuild the task force that was sent to liberate the Falklands 40 years ago.

They sent to the Falklands:

2 CV, now they have 2 (not working, but they at least exist)
7 Destroyers, now they have 6 total
16 Frigates, now they have 8 total
6 subs, now they have 6 total

 

[ThiccJimXXX]