Tier one or tier two force - is the British Army still among the best?

A retired commander has told Forces News the British Army would "struggle" to qualify as a Tier Two fighting force and "needs at least five, and probably 10, years to get fit for purpose".
It comes after reports claimed a senior US General had told the UK Defence Secretary the British Army was no longer considered among the world's top fighting forces.
But how do you know what tier a fighting force is and what impact does it have? Forces News takes a look in this video.
More: www.forces.net/services/army/...
#forcesnews #britisharmy
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: forcesnews...
Twitter: / forcesnews

[@johnlee3899]

The personnel are fantastic, the armed force though have been badly let down by 30 years of continuous cuts. While at the same time the military has been incredibly active near nonstop.

[@shinkoreancookery952]

Yeah the government should give the British military not just army I mean army, navy and airforce and so that they can keep up with the world

[@aztronomy7457]

It blew my mind how SAS guys talk about how they don't get the time they needed to train behind the gun. They just don't have the ammo budget.

[@Jaxck77]

@Barry ? When have the Tories ever been hawkish

[@acoustic5738]

Well, this is about the institutions, not a persona.

[@josephryan9230]

@@aztronomy7457 What a sad state of affairs. And it's not like they can go off-post to a local firing range and practice shooting with a pistol or a semi-auto rifle.

[@PokeEyeSlapSlap]

I’m Ex British Army Infantry, I’m astounded that the whole of the British Army can fit inside Wembley Stadium and have room to spare. Absolutely appalling and it saddens me greatly. Politicians again ruining the Defence of this Country to simply line their own pockets and shaft the outstanding professional members of HM Armed Forces, who always punch above with limited resources and always have done.

[@timleech5670]

Scary

[@jeffreyprezalar220]

We have all shrunk our services,the us had just under 2million people in the military now not even 1.4 million so it effects everyone. Let's put it this way we don't have enuf manpower to man everything we have if war were to breakout tomorrow.

[@Joe90V]

Responsibility for the state of the Armed Forces also lies with all those ex servicemen who voted for the tories and for brexit. By their gullibility they have enabled this to happen.

[@bastogne315]

Tories defending Russia from day one.

[@lestrem11]

It’s not about politicians…it’s taxpayers who fund the armed forces.

[@Crom_smite_you]

Get rid of capita while your at it, they've completely butchered the recruitment process. So many young men are being led on, left waiting to then be rejected by some silly insignificant medical issue, or just leave because the recruitment process takes too long.

[@skeletonkey6733]

Them guys destroyed and damaged so much im sure are on Putins payrol

[@unblessedcoffee1457]

If you actually look at the data, capita have been more successful than the military ever were recruiting people. Most manpower problems come from people leaving early, after they've joined. But I get its much more popular to blame external contractors.

[@Crom_smite_you]

@@unblessedcoffee1457 have to disagree with you there my friend.

[@crusader8626]

It is truly weird how they've become more strict on joining. My mate got denied to join due to an issue with his eyesight, however, a month before, he would of been accepted. I know you want soldiers who can see obviously, but there are people who have worse eyesight in than him now. A sharpshooter I've met has two eyes facing different ways for christ sake

[@composimmonite3918]

Crapita

[@ufarmer]

its the fact we focus on the best equipment but dont actually have enough of it to use in a full scale war. we need to focus more on numbers, bring the army back to 100k min

[@avisilvermann2838]

175K minimum

[@HistoryForYouOfficial]

@@avisilvermann2838 250K is a better, more comfortable, and realistic number.

[@carlosslimjunior]

@@HistoryForYouOfficial no it isn’t 😂😂😂

[@jonreid7957]

We focus on the best equipment? You serious? AS90 hopelessly out ranged compared to peers. Challenger 2 needed updating by now, not in 2030. Warrior is an antique but has to stay for now etc etc

[@heinedenmark]

What best equipment?

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

10 years to make the army strong again. That is terrifying

[@windymiller6908]

Knowing the UK that will be more like 20 years!

[@59patrickw]

10 years to make the army strong again what about the other UK forces and that time scale ??? and the hardest part will be to get a government that will do it

[@drewwilliams6888]

@@windymiller6908 You are too generous, 100 years more likely, politicians of whatever party, always leave our armed forces down.

[@johnchristmas7522]

And thats only if they are FULLY committed.

[@takokat7733]

That's assuming our government takes the hint, considering this complacency has existed since before WW2 I'm not particularly hopeful.

[@mickhall88]

Historically the British Army has always been underfunded and poorly equipped. 1939, 1982 and 2001 for examples. Yet time and time again the government have expected miracles from all the services, not just the Army; sending them to fight, expecting battlefield dominance, without any of the resources they need to achieve it. As a society we need to wake up and smell the geopolitical coffee, and get real about our national defence and our commitment to NATO. Militarily we are fading into insignificance

[@appstratum9747]

Back in the mid-70s, when I was a kid, I read a rather grand book - it looked expensive - that I found at my grandmothers entitled "Britain's Glorious Navy". It was printed shortly after WW2. The Foreward was written by some admiral or other - I can't remember which. But I remember what he wrote. He was lamenting the sheer complacency and lack of preparedness of the Ministry of War (the MoD of that time) to provide the Royal Navy and other armed services the necessary resource throughout the 1930s while the risks of a rising and fascist Germany were there for all to see. He basically summed up by saying that Britain had lived on past glories for far too long and had paid the price. It had started way too late in the day to deter Germany by diplomatic means but backed up with a fully modernised and properly resourced military. The tone of this Foreward was pretty much what you've summed up in the first paragraph of your post.

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

You HAVE faded... about 80 years ago.

[@Jackman1st]

Why have you left 1914 off there? We were extremely underfunded and unprepared to face the German Army before the outbreak of WW1 and their generals knew it, which is one of the reasons they gambled on invading Belgium. If we maintained a large enough army in the pre-war years there’s a good chance it deters the Germans. The vast majority of the BEF was killed or wounded by the end of 1914, we were overwhelmed and pushed back at Mons starting the embarrassing Great Retreat.

[@NA.NA..]

Historically the British army has always been underfunded and poorly equipped, and Historically the British army get carried by the Americans.

[@burtlangoustine1]

Lost lives influence pooitical backing and public backing....I horrifically expect robotic units to come into force. They could wage entire conflicts away from human eyes human losses and nobody would even know...

[@alinicol]

If only they had Generals like you who talked out while they were serving. Oh wait, you didn't, did you.

[@thelastdruidofscotland]

exactly, sipping tea bemoaning the state of an orginisation he directly led, what a dithering idiot he is.

[@dap3023]

They never do - until they have their gold plated pensions in the bag, then they sing like canaries (for a nice little fee)….

[@goodyeoman4534]

They might have argued their point behind the scenes, and at their meetings or whatever. They couldn't speak out at the time, as they were beholden to rules and confidentiality agreements. Or do you want an army that leaks information to the press constantly?

[@davidz2690]

@@dap3023 god forbid they put their own interests first...

[@occamraiser]

It is shocking to see how enfeebled Britain's defence is. Defence of the realm is job number 1 for governments. Even Maslov's Hierachy of emotional needs recognises that physical safety is priority 1. 100k front line troops is an absolute minimum. We also need to make sure we re-energise the UK's indigenous arms manufacturers - clearly we can't rely on buying German equipment if we actually want to use it in the way we choose to.

[@davesaunders568]

We buy a lot of our military clothing from China, what's that all about?

[@wjf0ne]

occam raiser Don't you realize that was what the EU defense force was all about, producing and purchasing equipment from European arms developers and manufactures while individual state-lets could cut back on spending over all as 27 smaller forces combined with harmonized equipment still presented a large enough armed forces establishment to cope with anything the EU bureaucrats would start. That was the idea which all PM's from Blair of the sexed up dossier onward supported, then we plebs went and spoiled it all by leaving and the current PM is probably more concerned about the Indian defense forces or how he can afford the four star hotels for the new British than how our defenses stand.

[@dynamo1796]

Theres no doubt that the British Army isn't where it should be - there much to catchup on. However, lets not be melodramatic here. Maintaining and large, modern and well equipped army is not feasible to the nation's economy, unless you're America and you literally build you economy around it. In terms of Europe, Britain has a slightly smaller Army than France and a larger one than Germany. The British military is one of a very small club of nations that can mount airborne and amphibious assaults in extremely short notice. Its armour and artillery are decent but will always come second to the Navy (particularly in peacetime) because the Navy has always done more for Britain's protection and power projection than the Army. The Navy is always the most costly force within any western nation's military. Ships, the weapons/ sensors and the sailors and resources to operate them are not cheap. Britain will always be better off putting priority on new ships than on expanding the Army. Why? Because at the end of the day, the British Army has always been an expeditionary force. We don't do major pitched wars alone, not even in the Napoleonic Wars were the British Army the biggest on the field. Its troops and cavalry were high calibre, but always the smallest or second smallest. WW1 and WW2 was the same thing again. But all throughout history, Britain ruled the seas around Europe and beyond. Today, the British Navy is still the most powerful western European navy in existence and is a tier 1, blue water force. The Army, put simply, is just not the priority for the MOD. Its not the force that would stop an invasion, its not the force that can project power internationally and its not the force that mounts our nuclear deterrent. The Royal Navy is, and should be, P1 for the UK as it always has been and always will be the strongest punch we throw. The Army is the glove that punch is wearing.

[@noelgrippen4707]

@@dynamo1796 4% to 5% of GDP would make the British armed forces an extremely capable military, with good mass in all branches. It's doable, the will just isn't there in government. Edit: by the way I don't disagree that the navy should be the priority it absolutely should, but even there we're only getting 8 Type 26s, 5 undoubtedly underarmed Type 31s and another 5 I imagine severally underarmed Type 32s. F35B force generation cannot be helped unfortunately, that's the American side. But yeah we're currently down to I think 6 nuclear attack submarines, it will be 7 eventually but it's still too few. The navy is way too small for what the government wants it to do. The navy absolutely cannot defend the British isles and wage war abroad at the same time, we'd be a sitting duck for submarine launched cruise missiles. Yes these scenarios are highly unlikely but not impossible. So only 14 heavy duty warships in the future, 8 Type 26s, 6 Type 45s. Add 5 Type 31s for lighter operations and the 5 Type 32s to give the impression the navy is increasing. Logistics is the saving grace of the British armed forces right now, RFA being the star.

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

And even more shocking should be that despite it's pathetic state, the British military is still the strongest military in Western Europe, and in Europe in general only behind Russia, Ukraine and Poland.

[@nigelbagguley7410]

my brother retired as a major in the Mercian regiment and he says this is shameful how this has been allowed to happen. We never learn our lessons

[@noodlyappendage6729]

The U.K. doesn’t have years. We need to start now.

[@griffinpeacock4167]

Truthfully no one in world is ready to fight tonight. Not even the United States military.

[@noodlyappendage6729]

@@griffinpeacock4167 correct ✅

[@jsb1585]

The simple fact of the matter is that defence spending is not something you can do on the cheap. Certain realities remain, regardless of technology. You still need numbers, whether that is deep reserves of artillery munitions, or large pools of personnel who can be mobilised quickly. All of this requires a lot of money. You can't expect to have the same capabilities after cutting defence spending for the last 30 years.

[@skeletonkey6733]

Well said and thank you

[@nigg2811]

Yes, and because defence is costly and the UK doesn't have a lot of money, its armed forces have been reduced. This is partly on the understanding that we're rarely going to go into battle alone. When it comes down to national survival, in 1914 and 1939 it was just the Britain and France who were standing shoulder to shoulder. Now it's Britain and 30 other members of NATO, including the USA.

[@garagenigel]

It speaks volumes when the French can deliver a far superior fighting force for alot less money! Where is our money being spent??

[@josephryan9230]

@@nigg2811 How much of this is money vs. national will? The Territorial Army can always be expanded, as a way to increase numbers without the same costs as the active force. Did the UK really need to go from 900 MBTs during the Cold War to less than 180? If the will is there, one finds the way.

[@appstratum9747]

@@nigg2811 "... and the UK doesn't have a lot of money..." But hold on... it's the 5th largest economy in the world, isn't it? And the centre of global finance. And world beating at everything, so our politicians tell us. So if the UK doesn't have a lot of money... who the heck does? So how is it, do you think that the " UK doesn't have a lot of money". Because I can tell you for a fact that Finland has a population less than one tenth of that of the UK and yet has an army three times the size. And per capita, their air force is MASSIVE compared to that of the UK and, for most of the last 20 years, has been better equipped and more capable. And just to correct you, Britain wasn't at war with Germany in WW2. The British Empire was. All of it. Including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, various countries from Africa, the West Indies and troops from British India, too. And from various other countries. During the key battle of Britain, around one fifth of RAF pilots were Polish and they, by all accounts, were by far the most effective in terms of the number of kills they made. This coming from the account of their previously sceptical but now absolutely gobsmacked British CO. So it's simply not true that Britain and France were were standing shoulder to shoulder and on their own in 1939. As for 1914 - for the love of God - where do I begin? There were so many countries involved in that on Britain's side you could almost lose count. And these are just the ones in Europe. Not including the Empire. Even troops from Portugal, the country where I now live, were fighting alongside the British and French. It's a real shame, you know, that we don't actually teach 20th century history in British schools. It seems that there's an entire generation (or two) of people who learned their "history" from 1950s and 1960s war films. I don't mean to stick the boot into you personally, I hasten to add, but these misconceptions of the past dictate your view of the present. Please do take a friendly hint and pick up a history book (or just look at the Wikipedia page on WW1), because you have no idea how many people in Europe (not to mention the Commonwealth) roll their eyes yet again when they read this sort of "we stood alone" codswallop. Britain has almost always fought wars on European soil as part of large alliances or having leaned on its empire for support. It has never, remotely, gone it alone. The reason for this? Because the British Army prior to the 20th century was quite tiny compared with all the other major European powers, while its navy was huge. Present day Britain has a relatively tiny army, air force and navy across the board, given the ambitions it has for these and its NATO responsibilities. When you take out the expenditure on the nuclear deterrent (which is very important, I grant you and very expensive) the UK spends way less than it should. Which is why its capabilities are far less - certainly for its land Army - than many other poorer and smaller countries in Europe and elsewhere who you'd think would be significantly weaker. They not. In many cases they're stronger. Poland is buying around a 1000 excellent K2 tanks from South Korea and another 250 Abrams tanks for the United States. They already have hundreds of the excellent German Leopard tank. All of these are as good as or better than the British Challenger 2 (and even the soon-to-be-acquired Challenger 3, in some cases). This is a serious capability. They have the artillery to match. The UK, by contrast, has around 225 Challenger 2 tanks and this is set to drop to less than 150 Challenger 3 tanks (which are essentially rebuilt 30 year old Challenger 2s with a new turret and electronics). Here's the kicker: Poland is poorer than the UK per capita and has just over half (56%) of the UK's population. But the difference is that Poland takes its defence seriously. They place emphasis on tanks and artillery rather than Trooping the Colour. They, too, are part of NATO and have all the same allies that the UK does. But they're not complacent. And they don't make excuses like "...the UK doesn't have a lot of money..." Especially, when self-evidently such excuses aren't true. The money is there but it simply goes somewhere else. Have you ever wondered why the UK exhibits such an imbalance between very rich people and the rest of society? And why this is so much worse in the UK than most European countries? I'd suggest that because you're in the latter group (like most of us) your perception is that the UK doesn't have a lot of money. It does. It's its just in the pockets of the top 1% (a group I used to belong to at some point in the past) and particularly the top 0.1%. And from the UK, miraculously, it often ends up in British tax havens around the world. I'm not a ranting super-left-wing socialist. I'm simply telling you the truth.

[@paulsharp8359]

another help for the British army would be to stop senior officers from serving at the mod after the age of 50 if a soldier has a shelf life so should officers irrespective of rank.

[@thelastdruidofscotland]

@@c.jakobsen1335 then they must be evaluated in those terms, tested to ensure critical thinking has not slowed or degraded, timed responses to hard questions, many a battle has been lost to dithering idiots.

[@59patrickw]

@@c.jakobsen1335 When they take up driving a desk in civvies instead of a uniform will they take on new ides about the army or stay stuck in the old ways just like at start of WW 2 and trench warfare and also have up to date intel not like what we thought the Russian was equipped

[@cammysmith7562]

@@thelastdruidofscotland they are. They have to go to staff college and get permission boards. Best officer I know is 55, joined the army as a private and worked up to lieutenant colonel. Although he might have outdated views. His skills, knowledge and general ethos are invaluable. Particularly in training institutions or when going down to Whitehall to speak on our behalf.

[@johnyisme3287]

Yes lets lose all of that experience.

[@lewismorrison4098]

The MOD without the insight of previously serving officers would just be like all the other departments - miles away from reality. There are bad eggs everywhere, but collective ground level experience is key to good policy making. UK keeps getting this wrong imo

[@Chuck_Hooks]

Poland is working toward spending 4% of GDP and is showing NATO how it's done. It is a matter of political will and determination to be a top military power.

[@phooogle]

And the silly thing is military spending has massive public support so I don't see why the UK doesn't just give it what's needed? Maybe it'll happen, dunno tho.

[@airhabairhab]

The current Polish government are corrupt loudmouths. Ask any Polish military member, that raise to “4%” will be creative accounting on paper only.

[@occamraiser]

@@phooogle The spending DOES have public support - but closing hospitals or putting up taxes to pay for that spending won't have public support when people are confronted with the actual trade offs. We need a campaign of people DEMANDING higher taxes to finance the things we value.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

@airhab airhab Those South Korean tanks and howitzers being delivered to Poland aren't being given away for free.

[@1chish]

Sorry but its going to move to 3% the same as the UK's declared position so its showing nobody anything. And historically what has Poland spent? In 2022 it was $14 Bn. Remind me which country it relied on for 24 Challenger MBTs to quickly backfill for the Soviet era tanks Poland sent to Ukraine?

[@crusader8626]

We aren't even classed as an army anymore. We're a militia. I think 80000 troops is the number to be classed as an army, we're at about 72000

[@leeneon854]

Dought it's even 72000, front line troops, probably half that number.

[@GracesGarden80]

I still can’t believe that despite the Challenger 3 upgrade, it’s years from fruition and the numbers are quite frankly hilarious - 148 total number of tanks for the UK army, a reduction of hundreds from years past. That’s without factoring some will always be on exercises, NATO deployments and undergoing maintenance / training, leaving a fraction available in case of a sudden crisis. As for Ajax……. Thats on top of a reduction in Chinook numbers and a ridiculously low order of only 50 Apache AH64-E’s! In the event of another Iraq / Afghanistan, (let alone Russia) the ability to generate and sustain sorties will be limited. We are letting down those serving and crucially, needlessly endangering their lives through significant degradation of kit.

[@garagenigel]

Where has all of the extra money gone?? Someone has it!

[@GracesGarden80]

@@garagenigel Well it’s definitely not gone to the airforce. 101 operational Typhoon’s and under 30 F35-B’s (which are shared with the Navy), no AWACS, reduced Wedgetail orders to 3, reduced iSTAR and SIGINT capabilities, ancient Puma’s, reduced Chinooks etc……..

[@madkabal]

148 Tanks is less than one US Mechanized Division

[@GracesGarden80]

@@madkabal Cricky! The UK government and Army has reiterated its commitment to tanks, especially in light of the war in Ukraine. The order books say otherwise. My local car dealership has more vehicles!

[@willsutton04]

Not to mention that some of our vehicles are 50+ years old and have so many things wrong with them

[@superseacrow9463]

This is spot on. My son has been in the army for 2 years. He hasn't even been on exercise, all the skills he gained in his training are gone. He goes to the ranges twice a year and his weapon isn't even zeroed in, he's told to aim off. When he practices setting up equipment that doesn't work nobody is interested in getting it fixed. He is told to maintain obsolete kit that cannot be used with NATO forces. Nobody is held accountable for these failings, but its the same across all publc services, NHS,police, schools. The money is going somewhere, but it's not to anything that benefits society and our way of life.

[@mattm7007]

Benefit state that's where.

[@UR_HR]

Your poor son, it must be so demoralising.

[@litewind1793]

What regiment is he in ?

[@matth4791]

@@litewind1793 oh please do one cretin

[@donxz2555]

Spot on

[@paulsharp8359]

at present we have a defence force not an army, in spite of how much the TA can do, an army was recognised as 100,000 permanently under arms, which disqualifys use of the TA from the army numbers in respect to having an army. no sleight to the TA .

[@Pesmog]

I have been saying the same for years. The media don't understand this though....

[@johnchristmas7522]

Those numbers are NOT an Army. Start at 500,000 would be nearer the mark. trouble is, who is going to join an unsupported Army/Navy/Airforce? As a guide, Brazil and Bangladesh have police forces of over 300,000! The British Army is a Scout Troop

[@ghostwriter2031]

The new Ranger Regiment was just an excuse to cut numbers but tied up with a big red bow around it. MOD hollow sound bites that mean nothing.

[@somebawldy3789]

They've been doing that for years

[@phooogle]

Don't we have like 6 days worth of fuel and ammo? You can be as tier 1 as you like, but if you can't war fight for even a full week it's pretty meaningless.

[@malcpaul996]

Fuel is easy, there are plenty of petrol stations around.

[@Louis-ej1lx]

But in the 80s with a corps sized unit on the inner German border we still only had 10 days of supplies

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

@@Louis-ej1lx cause a war with the USSR would last 10 minutes

[@BB-et8pl]

Logistics. War stopper.

[@myparceltape1169]

@@malcpaul996 A queue of private motor cars will form if trouble is likely an these stations will be drained before two days are out. Look back at any of the previous "fuel crises" or suspected price rises.

[@californiadreamin8423]

I wonder how long it takes to manufacture a new main battle tank, when the Newcastle plant is now a B&Q car park ?

[@jarraandyftm]

Even if you could knock up a Chally in B&Q it’d just get stuck in the roadworks on the A1!

[@myparceltape1169]

DIY Armour.

[@skillbopster]

@@nrm4754 Rubbish not garbage. Keep it British.

[@NotAllBooksSmellNice]

Mate, I can't even drink the water on camp because I'll get diseases from the 1700's, I've gone 2 winters with no heat or hot water in my full time army accommodation, the buildings I work in have asbestos falling like snow from some of the holes in the ceiling, and instead of training, in just the last 2 years (including during pdt) the Reg has sent lads to do anything from drive ambulances, to vaccinate, test, and everything in-between. The Tories would have us teaching children if we could stop swearing long enough to teach a lesson. Our pay is laughable, the new pension means the only lads who plan to do a full career are those who are too young and dumb to understand financially how bad it is. I've seen several men with gallantry medals break down in front of me because they're so incredibly overworked they don't have a home life, let alone a work/life balance. We are losing the best lance jacks to civy Street, and the ppl set to become the next full screws are the ones that are left. I could go on and on, this is just off the top of my head but my point is that no amount of stiff upper lip is going to fix how incredibly angry, used, and depressed the average British Soldier is. We know man to man we're great soldiers, and we also know that our capabilities and combat effectiveness are a joke. We're not idiots, we use our equipment, we struggle to get parts, or kit, we know the money isnt making it to us. We've known how bad it is for years and years. They're making us do significantly more with much much less. All that Yank general did to kick off this discussion was say the quiet part out loud.

[@Mac_0903]

Absolutely bang on mate literally every camp I’ve been to has the same conditions and every bod wanting to sign off

[@exrsm1230]

I retired in 2018, honoured to be a former RSM and shocked and what has become of our army. Throughout my career I saw kit & equipment come on leaps and bounds but that was due to operational requirements. The strategic defence reviews in my opinion devastated the Army, loosing so much KSE from enforcing redundancy was utterly wrong and the blokes that took it voluntarily cashed in and I don’t blame them! What the army should be looking at is how The Fleet have planned for the future - The Future Commando Force program has been a huge success with the sea hats doing an outstanding job of being ready for their role in the future. However the Army Ranger concept to me has not been thought through sufficiently to deliver the 3 Bns of fully trained & equipt soldier at the time of the launch. Sadly it will take a lot of time and money to get us back to where we should stand, that said I still don’t believe there is a finer squaddie in the world than the British Squaddie!!

[@gmtime5439]

I couldn’t agree more. I’m an ex officer who left the Gunners in 2001. Army spending has always been controlled by the wrong people - politicians. Equipment programs that take 20 years to come to fruition, such as Ptarmigan, should never be allowed to happen, but do so because of a desire to develop technology ourselves. As a junior staff officer I wrote a paper on the procurement and deployment of HVM Starstreak vs buying Stinger directly from the Americans. What I unearthed during my research was eye opening. The skill fade on complex systems like Starstreak are not insignificant, meaning soldiers were having to almost completely retrain after returning from non job specific deployments, such as NI. Whereas systems like Stinger require significantly less time in the class room to get back up to speed. Add to this the per unit procurement cost argument, with HVM costing tens of millions more than its American rival and the overall cost benefit analysis starts to look grim for HVM. Examples like this can be found throughout all three services. Look at Eurofighter for probably one of the most egregious examples in recent memory. Or when our political lords decided it would be a good idea to re-engineer Apache to fit Rolls Royce engines instead of just using the off-the-shelf McDonnell Douglas they’d been designed to use. A completely bonkers move that held back the introduction of that specific weapon system for nearly a decade. I was duly rounded on and condemned for my analysis on my Captain’s course, but I remain adamant today that until the purse strings are fully controlled by the people using the gear, we’ll continue to have 20 year roll outs on useless equipment.

[@samb2052]

@@gmtime5439whilst I agree with much of your comment, we have to acknowledge that living in a democracy (of sorts) politicians are exactly the people that have to control the spend. The worst form of governance would be a technocracy where civil servants make those decisions with no accountability to the tax payers. Oh, wait . . .

[@samb2052]

Not far off, other than the last point. All the sick, lame and lazy suggest otherwise. Far too many sick and overweight service personnel.

[@peterbray5383]

Designed to benefit the Americans.

[@Sidney1WG]

@@samb2052 Agreed. There were to many when I served. Couldn't run a bath let alone a BFT.

[@rosiebull5338]

Army recruitment ads are a joke whilst you have the commando ads which still live up and look of intense and intriguing.

[@rbrizzle4394]

Former US Infantry here and the UK forces I served with on a small unit basis were just as good if not better than any other nation I served with. Followed by the republic of Georgia, and then the French. Just based off of those nations I had the pleasure of working with.

[@kveldgorkon4611]

That is so Sad ... I hope UK Gets to Tier 1 ASAP.. Cheers from USA

[@phill9283]

We haven’t been even tier 3 force f😊or years, we have spent all the money on tier 1 SF and RAF, The field Army is very broken.

[@AC-SlaUkr]

At least we’ve finally recognised this.

[@JAYSR94]

The pay is so poor and the caliber of soldiers coming through the door is absolutely shocking.

[@SKEPGFX]

It pains me to say but we are tier 2. We just don't have the numbers, finance or public support anymore to keep up, we need to grow, and we have failed. We will continue this decline unless a solution is found ASAP.

[@rewnz6632]

decline will continue until push comes to shove and we end up at war

[@Mr.mysterious76]

Britain is comparable to many third world countries in terms of military equipment numbers

[@59patrickw]

And that's with out the woke and LGBT+Q what ever have there say

[@SKEPGFX]

@@59patrickw I do hate to admit, our country can and always has the ability to be formidable. ALWAYS will have that ability. But we never seem to utilise it to the fullest extent. Never enough troops, never enough funding, never enough anything. How will we adapt?

[@judyparsons1333]

​@@SKEPGFXthis country if it works break it that's their way imagine the army 50 per cent women which they want which means lower standards and if that happened I would emigrate they are not capable of being on front line

[@michaelminers2612]

I've asked this before, but is the kit we're giving to Ukraine being replaced (latest stuff) or have we now just got even less kit?

[@MrSatyre1]

It's mostly surplus, or last gen that's being replaced with newer generations. Too slowly, if you ask me.

[@johnmcclainejriii5829]

Where we give supply "APCs" or artillery without stating the type, we have been supplying vehicles from private arms dealers surprisingly enough. Quite a bit has been sent from Belgian stocks.

[@occamraiser]

It is older stuff - but it DOES represent our fall-back equipment. No, it is not being replaced. How could it be without large tax increases?

[@occamraiser]

@@johnmcclainejriii5829 Yes, and paid for by us - rather than the Belgians. I would love to discuss that in detail with a Belgian politician one day!

[@MrDakkyz]

I don't think it matters tbh.. once Ukraine has beaten Russia there's no real threats left other than China and China are far away from been scary, they lack equipment for the size of the army and size of the country..

[@hertsish]

These are words of pure wisdom. All we need is politicians who are wise enough to listen and act.

[@vitaliyvyntu4566]

Thank You so much

[@steveswitzer4353]

i always remember in the 80s in germany we used to work with vehicles and get acid spashed ... so when you went to get new combats there were never any so we had a 'fashion show' for the worst dressed squaddie .. the most patched up . Finally a few who looked like the guy in the song 'patches' or robinson crusoe got new kit

[@m00nh0wl5]

I am a former army officer, of late Cold War vintage, and I think that these comments are absolutely on the money. Today's British Army is a shadow of its former self, and those in command and in charge politically who permitted this decline should hang their heads in shame and their honours should be withdrawn. God help us, as I fear that it will be more than the ten years suggested that will be required to rebuild what was so carelessly allowed to rot away.

[@59patrickw]

Sir can our armed forces defend our own shores now? let alone use the military as a stop gap for the failings of civilian life by all governments. cold war vintage Royal Navy when we had ships

[@johnchristmas7522]

Its very obvious, they are not "Officers" but politicians, put there for the soil purpose of running down the Armed Forces.

[@m00nh0wl5]

@@59patrickw I suspect that this was intended to be a rhetorical question, but for what it's worth I believe that the answer is clearly no. The armed forces lack the equipment necessary (warships, fighter jets, long-range missiles) to counter an invasion, although they may deter a less committed opponent. Similarly, the armed forces lack the numbers to meet more than a single attempted incursion by an enemy that will not accept significant casualties. Sadly, we have no likely enemies who fit the profile "easily deterred and lacking significant numbers".

[@markrunnalls7215]

Be nice to see, some of the old regiments reformed, not just inf but lancers and hussars..

[@Rangetechusreviews]

When your politicians don’t see past their paychecks this is what you get.

[@belfastfella3240]

It's never been a tier 1 or 2 army. I served in the BAOR in the mid 80s with an infantry regiment, we spent most days in barracks cleaning vehicles and guards. We rarely went to ranges as the ammo wasn't there. I was given a ww2 air raid wardens helmet to use once camouflaged.. its never been properly funded . 😡

[@peterwait641]

lol those bouncing 58 pattern large packs and tin lids , designed by moron !

[@hughjass1044]

It always happens this way. Our principle enemy "disappears" and we proceed to invent all manner of pleasant sounding stories about eternal peace and friendship and blah, blah blah, all while letting our military strength atrophy and dissolve away. At the same time, a psychopath somewhere, who is more than willing to play along with our silly, naive little games of self-evisceration and denial, rearms and makes plans for conquest once again. Like any narcissist, he is a prolific writer and tells everyone what his plans and desires are but we still choose to jam our fingers in our ears, look the other way and make up even more stories to delude ourselves into believing that what is plain for everyone to see isn't actually happening..... until it's too late and we can't pretend anymore..... and we're not ready. The UK is not alone in this. Allied governments have done as much or more to get thousands of their own servicemen killed by inaction and lack of preparation than hostile powers have by action.

[@josephryan9230]

Very well stated!! So much of the 1930s here. The title of William Manchester's second volume on Churchill, "Alone, 1932-40," says it all. Retired US military.

[@hughjass1044]

@@josephryan9230 Yes! Hitler could not only have been stopped in 1936, when it became undeniably clear what he was doing, and getting ready to do, he could have been crushed! But alas, the allied powers would rather look away and try to pretend that reality was something else and that the problem would somehow magically go away if we ignored it long enough. A little closer to the present day, try to imagine how much death, destruction, upheaval and chaos could have been avoided if the western nations had have acted decisively against Assad in Syria. It's not much of a stretch to say that the current war in Ukraine would not have happened nor even the theft of Crimea since Putin would have seen that the allies were not only prepared to act but willing to do so.

[@billkingston4402]

Well said

[@louissanderson719]

The quality is outstanding. The numbers are shocking

[@joshs3066]

Continue development of Tempest, Challenger 3 and our current shipbuilding developments, but double down on these in terms of R&D and production - we also need to build up an export market to our NATO partners (and further, the more we sell the lower the cost of production becomes, which is our biggest challenge right now, prime example as to why so many nations choose the Leopard over the Challenger: price). We also need to ramp up the size of our Navy and the RAF, namely destroyers, F-35's and finally prepare our own independent air defense system. The logistics needs to scale in line with this production and acquisition to be fielded effectively. Introduce National Service for 3-6 months between the age of 18 - 25, not just for the Armed Forces, include emergency services, NHS as possible options but incentivise the BAF as the best choice. You'll ramp up to a reserve personnel of circa 300,000 within 5-6 years and build up a regular force of 100,000-ish, increased pay and let's add more incentives for those who serve as both regulars and reservists, the BAF needs to become a real option with opportunity for people- don't want £60,000 in University debt? 5 Year contract with the BAF, 3 years as a reservist, we'll pay for it. Upon 4 years of service, Gov support property purchasing moreso than already. Private BAF medical and dental care for life upon serving 5 years regular or 8 years reservist.

[@noodles169]

We are an island nation. Navy and air force will always be a priority. An army is mainly used to cross borders and invade, or defend a border. We have no borders. We have sea and air to defend

[@mizzy8655]

What happens when they do get on land? What happens if we have to defend an ally nation from an invasion? Navy and Airforce is important but you're always going to need the army

[@jono3447]

Been hearing this for decades, only ones to blame are politicians, again, if we got rid of them I'm starting to think we would all be better off.

[@davidhouseman4328]

Politicians are elected, defence hasn't been a priority for the electorate.

[@essexexile]

That’s a damning assessment.

[@josephlopez4041]

That the creativity in their yearnings influence the courage in their souls amen

[@rymoe6299]

We couldn’t handle the floods in selby Foot and mouth or fire strikes 🤬 Absolutely appalling state!! We’ve even privatised air sea rescue

[@somebawldy3789]

The lads have been saying this for years but nobody listen and all we got was "it's the army what do you expect"

[@buzzkitchen6606]

For the last 15 years they been cutting cutting cutting and depending on nato way too much

[@Korvintage64]

How many times has this happened throughout history? Countries, especially Britain, going through a disarmament policy because of 'supposed peace', then caught out from a conflict that has long being bubbling. Why oh why don't Governments learn?

[@caj4562]

An armies biggest opponent will always be the treasury. Voters and politicians forget. Look at what budgets have done to the Royal Navy in a hundred years…

[@thankgod4rednecsinnitt290]

The Tories have been too busy lining their own pockets whilst cutting spending for working people and apologising to the IRA terrorists and giving away power to separatists in Scotland, NI and Wales

[@goodyeoman4534]

Many times. The Navy was maintained throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, not just because of constant wars, but because of the commercial interests it protected. The army has constantly been run down and then built back up again, like you say. But even in the 1930s I think our standing army was far larger than it is now.

[@jirachi-wishmaker9242]

There was no disarmament policy. There wasn't enough fund if you exclude pensions.

[@MultiBarney12345]

Correct,and historically wr managed by the skin of our teeth to pull through by drafts running a war economy etc etc,but times have changed and the pace of technological development has sped up and the training required to utilise equipment and master this fighting capability can't be accomplished with a quick draft of the nation and an old rifle those days are long gone,we have to catch up and stay catched up otherwise the next war were done no ifs or buts that's the stark truth.

[@mronline1220]

What we need to spend is 3% gdp by at least 2025/26, better equipment, and more personnel

[@photoisca7386]

What we need is a new political class that believes in the country, no matter what endeavour is being discussed. The civil service needs fumigating as well. Nearly 50 years of rubber stamping EU policies has atrophied thought and activity in UK government.

[@mronline1220]

@PhotoIsca we also need to bring in laws to limit british businesses being sold off to foreign businesses. BSA, MG, JLR, Royal Enfield energy, and water companies all greatly affected our manufacturing industry.

[@johnlee3899]

3% was what we needed to spend to maintain our capabilities 30 years ago. We have massively underinvested for so long, it's going to take a lot more than that.

[@Mr.mysterious76]

Manufacture of advanced drones too

[@Ripper36068]

I doubt its even changed since I left I left in 2004 where you end up buying some of your own kit to make your life comfortable in the field!

[@peterwait641]

Never managed to exchange light weight trousers , allocation was 12 pairs per month for unit although shelves in stores were piled high. Some thought it better to leave and re-join to get some new kit lol

[@tedcopple101]

You can't be tier 1 or 2 if my family member, who's a senior nco, has to kip on a sofa in the station guard house as there's no accommodation for him, whilst working away from home. You need to put people first.

[@dufrayne_4192]

It's all down to our government. As long as they are ok , then nothing else matters.

[@essexexile]

Do we need a civil defence force possibly like the US National Guard to augment the Regular and Reserve army? I know we don’t have the same type of government like the US at the state level however would a civil defence force that could be open to those older than 39 which is the currently limit of the reserve be worth having?

[@gabrielcabral1665]

That depends; isn't the Territorial Army more or less along those lines? Because, really, the U.S. National Guard is the Ready Reserve component of the U.S. military, with permanent Combat Maneuver Formations (Army Divisions and Air Wings), made up predominantly by Citizen-Soldiers serving on a part-time basis...

[@257squadron]

Lets hope we have 10 years!!

[@noelcahill6707]

People should get the sack for leaving the country like this

[@nidhavellir]

This can happen so easily. Canada had a great military until a decade of cuts supported by public indifference. It would take 20 years for the Canadian military to make Tier 2.

[@carlashcroft6652]

Is the 16th Air Assault Brigade still an effective fighting force?

[@canuckguns]

It’s an honourable career, respect to these brave boys! I have always admired the British army, stay proud ! love from Canada 🇬🇧🇨🇦❤

[@georgejones3564]

Love you bro 🇬🇧 🇨🇦

[@jamesmcneil2472]

Couldnt fight our way out of a wet paper bag these days. Wouldnt last 5 minutes against a tier one opponent.

[@pjmoseley243]

Many years ago whilest serving as a British Soldier we were having this conversation, it emerged that the general opinion was its not the SIZE OF THE DOG IN A FIGHT BUT THE SIZE OF THE FIGHT IN THE DOG.

[@wonkylogic]

Maybe along similar lines as the saying : necessity is the mother of innovation. Maybe we will have to suffer in some way before this becomes a felt need in the corridors of power.

[@Acc0rd79]

It's almost like we didn't learn the lessons from the past. Let the military dwindle away to nothing and when a real war breaks out, you are years behind trying to always catch up!

[@paraguard60]

Just like the beginning of WW II, intelligence sources warned us that Hitler was planning something big, and Chamberlain was "fast asleep............................."

[@aaroncanniford9237]

Spot on

[@Rampagedd]

Not enough tools for the job or people to fill the boots. Yet we still donate our equipment..what a shame..politics has ruined the armed forces.

[@heywoodjablome2018]

What happens when you rely on Americans to be the world's police

[@BK-uf6qr]

I can’t stand cynical jabs at the US. Without the US the west would be weak. That not a boast it’s reality. The US wants its Allies to be strong. Without a strong voice in the world geopolitics would be a mess. The US isn’t “perfect” but who is? Maybe having Russia or China or Iran pushing people around without restraint is what’s needed to wake up.

[@PF9O]

I think we should have Military Service brought back, even if for only a couple months. Creates unity and something for misguided kids to do.

[@keithsimpson8335]

I agree with what's been said and what I've read in the comments, but the ones who can change things aren't listening. The main reason we're still regarded as a capable military force in the so called tier two, is down to the personnel.

[@ThatCarGuy]

Sadly the UK is now a tier two force as even the US has stated. The cuts to defense spending really hurt. "A senior U.S. general has recently warned U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace that the British Army is no longer considered to be among the world’s top-tier fighting forces, according to a Sunday report. The source told Wallace that decades of cuts to Britain’s military defense has eroded the country’s fighting capabilities, Sky News reports."

[@Whoami691]

The US was just sent packing out of Afghanistan. I'm not taking their assesment on anything seriously. Proof that a bigger budget doesn't mean victory.

[@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69]

​@Whoami691 that's a gross overstatement, and I'm sure the irony of what you've said is lost on you, seeing as how the British particularly performed far worse than their American counterparts in Afghanistan, read below: "Soon after the Musa Qala truce fell apart, the top US and Nato commander at the time, General Dan McNeill, told a visiting American official that the British had "made a mess of things in Helmand". In January 2009, Helmand's Afghan governor, Gulab Mangal, made a brief visit to Sangin, where he discovered that insurgents were operating with impunity no more than 500m from the district centre. Mangal was incensed when British troops told him it wasn't safe to venture to the bazaar - or anywhere farther than 200m from the main British encampment. "Stop calling it the Sangin district and start calling it the Sangin base. All you have done here is build a military camp next to the city," he complained. Mangal grew even angrier when the Afghan army commander in Sangin and the district governor told him that British troops "were searching compounds, walking on the roofs of homes, and treating the local population badly - including pointing weapons at people and going into areas where women were working," according to a US State Department cable describing the visit. The dissatisfaction with the British extended up to Kabul. Late in 2008, Afghan president Hamid Karzai questioned the effectiveness of the British during a meeting with US senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. He related an anecdote about a woman from Helmand who had asked him to "take the British away and give us back the Americans".

[@Whoami691]

@@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69 really that's why one of Americas own generals said if Britain pulled out of Kabul they would lose the whole region? Sure champ

[@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69]

@Whoami691 lmfao, and which General said that? Because it certainly doesn't stand up well to the numerous reports on British forces in Afghanistan, and I very much doubt that Kabul would fall without the British, seeing as how they could barely hold on to Helmamd as is. There were numerous other nations that had forces in Kabul. I'm sure Kabul would have been fine.

[@vitaliyvyntu4566]

Respect

[@aleccap5946]

Being saying this for years, people thought i was off my head when a couple mates brought parts of their own kit, as issue were rough as sandpaper, then 6 months basic training followed by drinking, one mate was put in charge of the naffe and become an alcoholic put on a charge for a missing £500 from missing booze lol

[@Tuffpaddy03]

Should never have replaced the SLR. That was the beginning of the end 😜

[@peterfalk7084]

Useful summary, I still find it odd that we shout this from the rooftops so all hostile actors can hear.

[@johnlee3899]

It needs to be shouted from the rooftops the situation has got so bad.

[@mkdy218]

They already know!

[@matth4791]

Everyone knows

[@petew5289]

I was talking to a serving soldier this weekroyalengineers same asi served told me he was a plant fitter on £17000 a year I was earning £12000 a year as a a1 specialist driver 38 years ago

[@aarondingain9006]

Can't argue with that but i see it like this over the years the government has been making cut back after cut back and not letting people join by using excuses like having an old criminal record or having an injuries and allergies like hay fever and so on or being told that they are too old i was turned down because i had a injured knee with a plate and pin's and the mod didn't want too take a chance on letting me try too do basic training but i was told that i could appeal against it but everyone who has had contact with the army will tell you that when the army make a discussion that's it end of so i ended up working as a security guard in stead

[@bobsalad8692]

Start national service in the UK, will teach the youth valuable skills, and reduce gang crime in cities. Hopefully the gang members will find actual jobs or join the Military after their service instead of trying to stab eachother.

[@barryalexander2909]

No, will just make the gangstas fitter, faster and more proficient at weapon handling.

[@bobsalad8692]

@@barryalexander2909 fair point, my hope was that they'd see there was more to do in life, and maybe learn a skill that they could use in work. But I guess they'd prefer to play with their swords.

[@skylongskylong1982]

By that comment I can not believe you served in the Armed Forces as regular, or reservists. Up to the mid nineties the only two countries did not have National Service, I let you use your library card to find out who they were. Volunteers make better soldiers, sailors, airmen, because they want to be their, conscripts do not because they do not want to their Have you ever thought of becoming a CFAV , or Cadet Civilian Instructor ?

[@barryalexander2909]

@@skylongskylong1982 that aimed at me mate?

[@appstratum9747]

@@bobsalad8692 Actually what you suggested is quite sensible. Back in the early 1980s, my father (who was a head teacher in an RAF school that somehow ended up with a lot of Army kids going there) had a conversation with the colonel in charge of the local Army camp. There were Royal Green Jackets there at the time, many/most from the roughest parts of Glasgow. My dad mentioned to the colonel that he was having real problems with some of the kids due to issues at home. Kids coming to school stinking of urine (which was visible on their clothes), domestic violence, children not having food at home, coming to school starving hungry and so on. The colonel was very understanding and said something along these lines: "Look, the problem you and I have is that the families are often really very rough. In civilian life most of my guys would be in jail or in life of crime outside. In civilian life, quite frankly, many would be awful and hideous people to know. But in military life, they're fantastic soldiers. And I'd have no hesitation in going to war with them and trusting them with my life. I know it's not much comfort, Mr Bridges, and I'll see what I can do. But that's just the way it is and I don't think it's going to change very much, unfortunately." The problem is, for a lot of kids, they just don't have anything. No possibility of a good military career. Not much in the way of youth clubs, sports facilities, playing fields, outdoors activities and so on. Plus being young and not able to do many of the things that your parents or grand parents might have on a young person's income. Like insuring a car and running it legally, for example. On a young person's wage in a rough area, insuring a car - especially a nice one - is virtually impossible. Buying a house is virtually impossible. Unless you are a criminal. In which case you have to compete with other criminals on your turf. Hence gang wars and teenagers packing handguns and knives. Remember Willie Whitelaw's short, sharp shock programme? The one that was supposed to discipline young offenders from dawn until dusk so they won't reoffend again? Remember? They absolutely loved it! Some would reoffend just to come back on the programme. They had food, activities, discipline, a clean bed, camaraderie and a felt great with all the exercise and challenges. Whereas outside all many had was a lighter, a spoon, some tin foil, a syringe and a pea-sized piece of heroin. That and a day spent shoplifting to pay for it all. It wasn't the intended outcome of the Whitelaw programme but it just shows. Kids aren't born to be gangsters. But if there's nothing better and plenty of peer pressure, that's where they end up. Not because of the money from crime, funnily enough, but because belonging gives them a warped sense of self-respect and the ability to survive in numbers. But gang violence tends to be driving by a craving for respect first and foremost. Because that's what most young men want. Which is not hard to understand. And they often get that in a uniform or an apprenticeship or something along those lines. Changing this culture, as with anything else, requires investment in people. And its this that the UK doesn't always do well. It's a shame that the Tories often forget a lesson that they learned by accident with Whitelaw. Instead, as in the US, they'd prefer to bang people up in jail and convince themselves that they're delivering on "Law and Order". Lots of kids come out and reoffend, especially those who were brought up in care. Why? Same old thing: the worst that can happen is ending up back in a place - prison - with a warm bed, a routine and a sense of belonging. It's not difficult to understand why.

[@jubear1493]

I completely agree with what this gentleman is saying with the one proviso. Recruitment. There badly needs to be a review and solutions come up with, as to why young men and women don't want to join the army, or indeed UK forces as a whole much anymore and it's not seeming a viable career choice much to them. Its not hard to work out generally speaking. A great many other jobs don't come with the threat of that much danger or plausible death, for not a great deal in return, compered to other careers. Somehow that NEEDS to change way before a government even starts thinking about funding and building a bigger army. Gaining actual humans that want to do the job in the first place and then retaining them, I'm afraid is a rather large problem this country has to face and overcome, if it really wishes to have a Tier one army. Solutions I would think are going to involve money and lots of it, which will have to come in the form of higher taxes, stuff the UK public doesn't like paying very much if they can very much help it, hence why we are where we are now. Governments are keenly aware that even the mere mention of higher tax's tend to cost them votes, add to that, they don't these days think a year ahead, let alone five or ten. so I await this or any future governments announcements on such things, if they do at all.

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

4 carriers (all EMCATOBAR, 2 medium fleet 65,000 tons with 3 EMALS with 3 lifts, 2 light fleet 45-55,000 tons with 2 EMAL and 2 lifts), 12 general purpose destroyers, 12 ASW frigates, 12 AAW frigates, 12 SSNs, 6 SSBNs. 60 F-35Bs, 36 F35Cs, 6 E2D Hawkeyes, 12 EA 18s. 288 MBTs, 576 IFVs with stepping up to 50mm guns, 1152 APCs with 30mm and a complete and total switch to wheeled and tracked artillery and MRLSs/MLRSs with at least 144 tracked and 144 wheeled MLRSs, and 288 tracked and 288 wheeled artillery vehicles. 72,000 man combat force, 144,000 support, logistics, medical, training, intelligence, electronic warfare, ect making 216,000 man Army overall. Change structure to 1 Combat corps made up of 4 Divisions. Each division is made up of 4 combined arms brigades made up each of 2 tactical battle groups working in support of one another. 48 man Platoons made up of two 24 man sections with three 8 man squads per section; assault (rifles squad/team with light machine gunner and three rifle grenadiers), fire (GPMG + rifle assistant, auto grenadier + rifle assistant, sharpshooter + rifle assistant, two rifle men) and support (area denial team, starstreak, Javelin, 2 NLAW, drone operator, 3 rifle men). When necessary the rifle men of the fire and support squads can be formed into a fourth squad as a reserve or manoeuvre squad. 144,000 combat reserves. 288 fast jets split evenly between Air superiority/interception and multi role strike. 48 Heavy lift aircraft, 12 super lift, heavy 12 fuel tankers, 12 light fuel tankers. I’m really unsure of the helicopter’s viability in modern combat operation so I’m not even sure of heavy lift and support helicopters or the navy’s anti submarine helicopters at this point, they’re are definitely still needed but the numbers are the hard aspect to gauge. 3.5% GDP

[@VOLFANATIC3]

Tier 3 at best. Nothing against the quality of training and the soldiers. It’s all about size, versatility, and ability to sustain a larger conflict. 73k man army barely equates to a division size element of actual combat troops. The majority of that force equates to support roles of actual combat units.

[@joecowhey7248]

You can't keep downgrading them and expect them to be fit for purpose. Years of abuse from government after government

[@nicholasjohnferriman8283]

How come senior commanders have not protested this before?

[@FloppaFan400]

A system like what the Swiss use, where the people are trained to be able to take action in the event of an invasion, would be good on paper but I doubt it would work here.

[@Dogmeat1950]

U.S Soldier here and it saddens me to see the Brits in such a state. I've trained with the Para's when I was stationed at Ft.Bragg and their a great group of guys. But listening to some of their complaints about training and funding was a shock to me. Cause well I felt I could use more training in the U.S Army and it turns out where getting more than I thought the British got and I was sadly mistaken by that

[@mfoutch4554]

As a former US Marine it's the same way. Compared to the Royal Marines we weren't on the same level. It's a shame their government treats them this way.

[@tattyheid7279]

It's shocking how few of the indigenous population join these days. Then again, I probably wouldn't have joined if the prospect was bouncing around super-garrisons in Wiltshire or Yorkshire. I only spent about 5 years out my twenty odd in UK. There's not a lot of that these days. The people who procure our kit need to be looked at as well - so many terrible decisions that waste money.

[@peterwait641]

DMS boots a trench foot crime since Falklands, only recently got rid of !

[@tattyheid7279]

@@peterwait641 Define recently. I believe they stopped being issued about 1983, replaced by BCH.

[@peterwait641]

@@tattyheid7279 The combat high is just a dms boot extended. Its made of same cheap leather, tongue is thin split leather. The insole is ferroflex, a cardboard leather dust composite that once wet does not dry out , army solution issue plastic mesh insoles. There is not substitute for a proper made boot like the German para boot. Quality thick leather with welted glued and stitched on sole with leather insole. At surplus stores in the 1980's combat high was £17 new and para boot about £60. If worn in welsh mountains with heavy pack the combat high sole would fall off due to shear forces, round camp easily last three years regular use !

[@tattyheid7279]

@@peterwait641 Nonsense, completely different boots in spite of your technical description. I wore both for a long time, I got on with CBH, lots of people didn't, and they definitely were made of better leather. DMS were junk and we tried to get our hands on something better, they used to retain water.

[@peterwait641]

@@tattyheid7279 lol try wearing them in rainy Otterburn weather for a couple of weeks !

[@SpookyFox1000]

These are the best guys in the world ! No doubt about it !

[@Pops1970]

This may be true, however, if there comes a time when the military is needed...you'll be shocked how fast it will improve. Dangerously quick, especially with the allies they have.

[@austinshannon4197]

I’m in the U.S. army and I think they are definetly among the best. No doubt I think America is the best just because I’m in it but the British military is still very powerful. About a year ago the royal marines actually defeated us marines in a training exercise and the us marines had home field advantage because it was in California. That’s a very Prestigous battle victory since America is suppose to have the best military in history.

[@MultiBarney12345]

The Royal Marines are part of the branches classified as special forces along with the parachute regiment and SAS and SBS bit unfortunately as good as they are there only a small part of our Army that's sadly very lacking.

[@timphillips9954]

America the best military in history, What movie was that in, lol.

[@ryanlynaghan5010]

no surprise there mate, royal marines are top tier soldiers in comparison to us marines

[@oatcake22]

I wouldn't think too much on that, not sure it's a fair fight. The royal marines have a much more specialised role that's roughly similar to a US tier 3 SOF unit. As a British army soldier I worked with 1/6 US Marines in Afghanistan and I would say their role and capability was similar to a British army infantry regiment all be it with more fire power and capability. I had about 30 helicopter rides in the 6 month tour and about 25 of them were from US marine air frames because we just didn't have the basic capacity to move around without the US' help. We also had embedded US forward air observers with us to call in fast air as we didn't have our own. So yeah man to man amongst the best in the world as individual training has always been of high importance but capability wise we are severely lacking

[@deanjohn433]

Well said I read that story about the Royal Marines beating US marines in training and it says it all we maybe a small army but we come with lots of war experience and that can’t be taken away but it’s a shame the government don’t want to have a military they can show off to the world and say we maybe small but we dangerous but no they’d rather let it rot and funnel the funds into their own pockets which is what’s happened for the last 15 years

[@willfletch5871]

We are more interested if Amy can be a platoon commander or Tiffany can be a 2ic even though Tif can’t hold a GPMG. Thanks David Cameron. You sacrificed operational effectiveness on the alter of being progressive and Shame on the senior officers for not having the guts to disagree with him. You know who you are.

[@roberttrippass]

Cameron was the worst PM of a bad bunch of leaders in the last 5 decades. Also a coward for resignation after he didn't get what he wanted 😤 PONSE

[@MRRookie232]

This is where you’re missing the point, a struggling defence force needs diversity, it’s a war for talent and if you’re not attracting the brightest, you’re doomed to fail. Also, the problem isn’t this, it’s tories cutting the budget year on year

[@willfletch5871]

@@MRRookie232 take it from me. A bayonet confrontation on a mountain involving a woman against a male foe means you lose the battle. No replay with an all male platoon. End, finished, dead, objective failed. Now go away.

[@MRRookie232]

@@willfletch5871 very valid point for mele combat, the world has since moved on

[@MohitKumar-jf8lz]

@Cyrus James what about stamina, endurance ,carrying strength, speed. Have we move from that too?

[@Heretican]

They oughta reintroduce national service for the reserves at least

[@matthewbaynham6286]

That will go down like a lead balloon. Most of the country is underpaid so much so that they are all going on strike and now you want to force people into compulsory military service as well. You would have a mutiny on your hands.

[@Tourist1967]

A waste of time and money, I'm afraid. In any case, since the law was changed some years back, reservists can, and do deploy on a full-time basis without a formal declaration of war.

[@homelandfighters8541]

Not only in UK military but the Commonwealth military

[@raylp4751]

As for the Navy. We need more Destroyers Frigates and at least a doz deisel electric / Stirling engine or Hydrogen. Submarines built by Sweden or Japan as well,as UK under licence with UK spec weapons such as spearfishing Inc guidance and control.

[@dazza9326]

We're tier two for sure... Underfunded. Our equipement has always been poor and not enough of it.

[@wjt2142]

The funding is far from the issue, we are a top 5 spender world wide

[@skillbopster]

@@wjt2142 It was capped for years until very recently.

[@steveh5005]

With respect these last decade retired officers are responsible as much as the government. They all served in the 200,000÷ size British army in the 1980s to mid 90s. When the first cuts occured. Then when they were staff officers in MOD in 2000s. And finally when they were Generals advising directly to the cabinet and PM. They said nothing. Not to rock the boat. Get the knighthood and pension. And im alright Jack! And now their all on TV and these security companies telling everyone its nothing to do with them !

[@myparceltape1169]

But the alternative was to revolt against their Sovereign's lawful government. Maybe service people should not take that oath.

[@PF9O]

I hope they have kept funding for the 22 SAS up.

[@belesariius]

systematic failures at all levels, all departments including the military leadership who did not do enough to stop the politicians, which they could have done if they are willing to go public and use the media.

[@anlerden4851]

I love British Army so much as an US Army fan.👍

[@user-yp9nz6bs9q]

You also love Donald Trump.

[@westpointsnell4167]

@@user-yp9nz6bs9q yeah I do so what

[@jasonmussett2129]

This is what years of penny pinching does

[@paulmcgee1867]

Only stock for a few days must be a recipe for disaster

[@brucelez1]

As a country the UK spends 3 times as much on the NHS as on defence.

[@ancientmachine9070]

Army here - We spend so so much on awful contracts like virtus and pinnacle

[@ghostwriter2031]

If you think virtus is bad I’d have liked to see you soldier in what we’ve had in the past. We are currently better equipped than ever before.

[@ancientmachine9070]

@@ghostwriter2031 oh no of course our kit is better but theres so much stuff they issue that is never used because its awful and this stuff aint cheap

[@somebawldy3789]

You must not of been in long because we've been screaming for good kit for years

[@shinkoreancookery952]

I hope the British can get or stay in top 5 but it could be challenging because of the money and equipment

[@airhabairhab]

The British ARMY (RAF and RN are in a only slightly better state but still struggling in manpower) is BEHIND USA, China, Russia, France, Ukraine and probably Turkey, South Korea so barely top 10. If Falklands happened today and USA refused to assist like last time we could NOT go it alone immediately and would need at least 5-10 years of investment and preparation before attempting a liberation campaign.

[@garagenigel]

@@airhabairhab I agree with you on the most part! However Argentina wouldn't make it anywhere near the Falklands with the kit and personal stationed there!

[@airhabairhab]

@@garagenigel That’s the UKs saving grace for the moment, as long Argentina are in this sorry state that they can’t even afford the fuel to get over to Falkland😂, then the Falklands are safe. Argentina won’t be down forever and when they are back all it would take would be some populist Trump like leader to convince his people to have another go.

[@JostVanWair]

@@airhabairhab If the Falklands was subject to another Argentine invasion, it would be over in 1 day.