Size of the British Army

[uk 75]

Yet again we have a General telling us we need a larger Army and one based on the Continent.

Ever since the end of the Second World War Britain has wrestled with the balance between its own national commitments at home and overseas and the wider need to defend in a coalition against Communism and then Terrorism.

Since the radical decision in the late 50s to end a conscript army in favour of reliance on the Nuclear Deterrent we have seen general war on the Continent as something to be avoided rather than actually fought.

Keeping the Rhine Army until the 90s was part of our commitment to avoiding having to use our own deterrent by acting as a credible first line of defence to Soviet forces in Eastern Europe.

Mr Putin seems to have put this issue back on the table.

 

[Thorvic]

Another Cold War relic of a General sabre rattling, has Germany asked for us to keep our troops in Germany, are they willing to pay for them or replace them with their own force level increase ?. Nope its just fighting tooth and nail to justify the Army size and role when it finally comes back to blighty and settles into domestic garrison duty for the first time in quite a few centuries. I don't recall the General standing his ground to keep the RAF up to strength to provide air support to his troops or the navy warship force levels as both of those are needed for Cold War stand offs.

 

[Rickshaw]

The British Army has been trying to avoid continental commitments for centuries. It has been trapped into them by circumstance but would always prefer not to, if it can avoid it at all. Britain became a maritime power for a reason, something it seems many British people have forgotten. Perhaps it's time for the RN to reassert it's dominance in the triad?

 

[Triton]

I never understood why it was known as the British Army rather than the Royal Army.

 

[J.A.W.]

Because - its tradition dates from the New Model Army of King-Buster Oliver Cromwell..

 

[uk 75]

This thread from 2014 has become even more relevant as various people bewail the small size of Britain's army.
I am unrepentant in arguing that our slender resources for defence should where they are most effective:

The Royal Navy's nuclear submarine force both SSN and SSBÑ remains the single most effective offensive force we have.

The Royal Air Force Typhoon force is crucial both to defend UK air space and to provide air cover to our allies. The multilateral Tempest programme is crucial but in the meantime more Typhoons are needed.

The RAF and RN between them provide both defensive and offensive capability against hostile maritime forces whether air, surface or underwater. These need to be expanded.

The British Army and Royal Marines are excellent at providing light infantry and special forces for use at home and overseas.

Combined arms ground forces whether BAOR in the Cold War or the Armoured Division used in the two Gulf conflicts have been at the very edge of our resources. Most of our major EU and NATO allies are much better placed to provide these.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Armoured 'corps', hmmm, not sure you could call it a brigade tbh.

The laboured people and the Storied people have for some time believed that we do not need an army at all because the europeans would be in the way.

Our defence has lagged in a lot of ways and NOW we have to rebuild capability of the industry too.